Here's a sermon I found from one of the 'heavy hitters' in the ET camp. He takes Universalism on very specifically, refuting many of the things, that to some extent we UR believers "hang our hats on"...Anyone up to sorting through this and shedding some light? IMO, this gentleman actually preaches a lot of UR in this sermon, yet at the same time denies it...typical of mainstream ET.
April 20, 1986
Bethlehem Baptist Church
Morning
John Piper, Pastor
Copyright (C) 1986, 1996 John Piper
WHY HOPE? GOSPEL! [edited for length]
Colossians 1:15-23
15) He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16) for in him all things 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. 17) He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18) He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19) For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21) And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22) he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23) provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul became a minister.
Sometimes we fail to eat the main course of a Biblical meal because we choke on the hors d'oeuvres. And in the end you get up from the banquet of Biblical truth and leave the table frustrated and hungry.
Good people often choke on parts verses 15, 20 and 23.
In verse 20 it may sound like all creatures are eventually going to be saved, so that there will be no one in hell in the end: (starting at verse 19) "For in him (Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." So universalists, ever since Origen in the third century, have taken this to mean that all creatures will be saved and none condemned.
Well, let me just point you in the direction of an answer to each of these questions without going into detail.
In verses 19-20 some people choke on the possibility that Paul is teaching universalism, namely, that all creatures will eventually be saved and none will be punished forever. It says, "For in him (i.e., Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (or: God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him) and (v. 20) through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Does this mean that one day God will reconcile to himself all unbelievers who have ever lived and even the devil? I don't think so. That would certainly contradict things he says elsewhere (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1:9). Let me suggest one possible solution.
Colossians 3:11 gives a helpful clue. In 3:10 Paul is describing Christians as people who have "put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator." Then verse 11 begins with the word "here" in RSV and NIV (literally: "where") to show that what he is about to say is limited in its scope to the sphere of this renewed humanity he was just asking about in verse 10.
He says, "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all." Now if you took the sentence,"Christ is all and in all," by itself, you might say that it taught universalism: "Christ is all and in all human beings without exception." But we know that is not what he means because the verse begins with "here" -- that is here in the sphere of the church; "here" -- in the new humanity that Christ is creating, he is all and in all.
This is the way I think we are to understand Colossians 1:20. Look how the paragraph is organized. The scope of verse 15-17 is all creation. The whole universe is in view. And the point is that Christ is preeminent over all creation, because he made it and he holds it all together.
But then in verses 18-21 the focus shifts and the scope is no longer the whole universe but the new creation, namely the church. Notice how verse 18 turns from creation to the church: "He is the head of the body, the church." Then it speaks of his being the first-born from the dead, that is he was the great first fruits of the new creation, the church that will one day rise from the dead and fill the earth with his glory.
Then, in this context of the church, we read verse 20, that "he will reconcile all things to himself in heaven and on earth." So I think the "all things" in verse 20 should be limited the same way the "all" in 3:11 was limited. Christ created all things in the old creation and he is preeminent over all (that is the point of verses 15-17). And everything that belongs to the new creation he will reconcile to himself and be head over all, (that is the point of verses 18-20). The Lord reigns. And he will save his people and subdue his enemies.
If last week we saw that we were chosen by grace, and called by grace, and sanctified by grace, and sustained in faith by grace, and glorified by grace, today we learn that all that grace was purchased by the blood of the cross and is emphatically a grace for estranged and hostile sinners.
And the gospel is the good news that there is hope for sinners, the worst of sinners -- the hope of forgiveness (a weeping harlot saved by faith); the hope of reconciliation (a broken prodigal coming home); the hope of holiness (a leper cleansed by the touch of Jesus).
But the hope of the Gospel is more. It is a world wide hope, and nothing else will satisfy our hearts in the end. It is the voice of the Lord that strips the forests bare. It is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:11-12). It is like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces (Jeremiah 23:29). It goes forth from his mouth and does not return empty, but accomplishes that for which he sent it (Isaiah 55:11). The grass withers and the flowers fall but the word of our God stands for ever (Isaiah 40:8).
And therefore it will reach to every people and tongue and tribe and nation; the ransomed will be called; the full number of the gentiles will come in; the eyes of all Israel will be opened; and the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The wheat and the tares will be divided: one into the furnace of fire, the other into the masters granary. And those who have believed the gospel will shine like the Son in the kingdom of their Father. And they shall reign for ever and ever in light.
This is the great global hope of the gospel! Let him who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires take the water of life without price. Receive the gospel. Stand in it. Hold it fast. There is no other hope than "the hope of the gospel"! Amen!
Copyright 1996,1999 John Piper
I'll start out with the last paragraph, this line in particular..."Let him who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires take the water of life without price.." IMO, in the true context of scripture, this is happening as people are leaving the Lake of Fire and accepting Jesus as Savior, not primarily to be used as the current-day alter call. Not that it can't apply, but again, look at the context. It's Rev. 22:17, when the gates of the City (New Jerusalem--US! The Bride!) is open and the Kings are bringing the nations into it/us. When the Spirit AND THE BRIDE are saying "Come...."
Also this; "the full number of the gentiles will come in"; full number?
This is COMPLETELY off-topic but had to post, if you don't mind:
hee. My sig comes from a portion of a poem by John Piper called "Glorified".
Among a lot of other things, God comforted me with, I believe God brought me these words in comfort over the death of my dog back in January. It's been a very difficult struggle, this death. I've been through the deaths of others close to me, my own mother who was my best friend, my grandmother, and others... but the death of my dog has torn my soul apart these past few months. It's hard to explain but it's one of the most difficult fires I've been through for various reasons. Anyway, it's funny... I didn't know anything about John Piper, didn't know anything about his beliefs. I just assumed he was a believer in UR after reading the following excerpt. :laughing7:
Funny how, no matter WHAT one of His children believes.... God can use them for the greater good.
Proves that God loves all of His children, no matter what His children believe about Him.
God can pick out the BEAUTY and TRUTH and discard the rest for us... if we have eyes to see. :HeartThrob:
I love the picture John painted below and it's been a source of comfort for me.
I absolutely believe I will be reunited with my loved ones and with my beloved dog.
But the picture John painted with his poem is especially beautiful to me.
And as I knelt beside the brook
To drink eternal life, I took
A glance across the golden grass,
And saw my dog, old Blackie, fast
As she could come. She leaped the stream—
Almost—and what a happy gleam
Was in her eye.
I knelt to drink,
And knew that I was on the brink
Of endless joy. And everywhere
I turned I saw a wonder there.
Peace ya'll...
Love,
sparrow
p.s. sorry to go so off-topic, but I had to share.
:icon_flower:
Nah, it's fine Sparrow, thanks for sharing. I agree about God using us to help each other and to serve His purposes. And anyway, this thread shouldn't be about picking apart the man, but examining the message. I believe he's a brother...God has us all at different spots along the road on the journey. Before He showed UR to me, I still believe God's grace was on my life, and He used me at times for His glory...IMO, same with John Piper.
Scripture doesn't say "believe in UR, and you shall be saved"
Or "believe in UR and you'll go to hell".
Or "believe in eternal torment, and you shall be saved"
Or "believe in ET and you'll go to hell".
It says "believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved". And "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Saved..part of the family of God. We do often have a hard time sittin' down to dinner with our relatives, though. Kind of a shame. But God's in control.
Thanks again for your good post.
And may God bring healing to your heart on your loss.
Quote from: jabcat on May 05, 2009, 12:52:51 PM
Nah, it's fine Sparrow, thanks for sharing. I agree about God using us to help each other and to serve His purposes. And anyway, this thread shouldn't be about picking apart the man, but examining the message. I believe he's a brother...God has us all at different spots along the road on the journey. Before He showed UR to me, I still believe God's grace was on my life, and He used me at times for His glory...IMO, same with John Piper.
Scripture doesn't say "believe in UR, and you shall be saved"
Or "believe in UR and you'll go to hell".
Or "believe in eternal torment, and you shall be saved"
Or "believe in ET and you'll go to hell".
It says "believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved". And "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Saved..part of the family of God. We do often have a hard time sittin' down to dinner with our relatives, though. Kind of a shame. But God's in control.
Thanks again for your good post.
Thanks jabcat, for being gracious with my off-topic post... :laughing7:
And I loved everything you said in your above post.
:mfriends:
ok, back to the subject at hand, you guys... :winkgrin: no more commercial breaks. lol...
Quote from: jabcat on May 05, 2009, 01:03:07 PM
And may God bring healing to your heart on your loss.
Thank you, brother. :HeartThrob:
welcome, dear one. have a blessed day
I attended John Pipers church for a few years. I have sat in his living room with him and shared words with him. He is a very strong Calvinist at the core. Jonathan Edwards is a big person in John's life. Yet John goes beyond what a mere label can convey. He lives and breathes Jesus Christ. He tries to be fair to all views and I see that trait even now in the passage Jab set before us. John's favorite saying is "Go hard after God!"
It amazes me how we people get so stuck in one way of thinking on so many fronts. We really do. Sure some of us change from time to time but generally we hold fast to beliefs or ways of thinking. We are all made in such a unique way yet that way is cast in stone for the most part. God is the Sculptor who alone chisels the stone (us).
cp
QuoteSo I think the "all things" in verse 20 should be limited the same way the "all" in 3:11 was limited.
'all things' is the universe, ta panta does
not mean 'all
things' but 'the whole', the universe; in German, das (the) All
Hmm. He references the new humanity that Christ is creating, but thinks it's only happening in the "church" (ekklesia). Well, that's where it has to start, but leaving it there is classic dispensationalism (as well as typical Calvinism). One of the major problems with dispensationalists (I know, I used to be one) is that they only see things happening in the context of their dispensation; but there is more than one!
One problem with what he's said is that in Revelation, God is making ALL (things) new, not just the ekklesia. I also noticed he didn't touch 1st Timothy 2 or 4.
And, he's making some assumptions in using 2 Thess. 1:9 as a contradiction of biblical universalism.
The limitation of the Sand Piper is his seafood, customized to the taste of the one eating;
flame broiled in Hell fire, and served on a napkin of wrath.
"Glass of Water Please!"
I do appreciate John Pipers heart where he at least has the courage to say "let me suggest", or "I think" instead of throwing down as the definitive authority.
It was an interesting read, but it is cherry picking as I am finding out most ET, (and yes, sometimes us UR's) will do. As I continue to study UR, in light of preterism, I find that most of the New Testament is written to a persecuted young Church warning them of events about to happen (ie. 70AD). Jesus speaking of "hell" is actually speaking of Gehenna or "valley of Hinnom". He is speaking directly to the pharisees and saduccees about the destruction of their religiousity. Gehenna was very real to them as it was a place of unequal shame. Gehenna was a dump that many executed bodies were thrown into and burned to rid the city of them. It was a place of dishonor "where the worm (maggots) never die."
John Piper, as godly as he is, and I have much respect for him, is blinded by tradition. He does not take on the whole of Universalism but tries to build a sermon on one small section of Scripture. I'm sure it had its intended affect with the intended audience.
Through my own trials at my own church I have learned that UR is a utter disaster to the established church. It destroys their authority over the lives of the masses.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
Quote from: Texas Son on May 07, 2009, 05:16:45 AM
I do appreciate John Pipers heart where he at least has the courage to say "let me suggest", or "I think" instead of throwing down as the definitive authority.
It was an interesting read, but it is cherry picking as I am finding out most ET, (and yes, sometimes us UR's) will do. As I continue to study UR, in light of preterism, I find that most of the New Testament is written to a persecuted young Church warning them of events about to happen (ie. 70AD). Jesus speaking of "hell" is actually speaking of Gehenna or "valley of Hinnom". He is speaking directly to the pharisees and saduccees about the destruction of their religiousity. Gehenna was very real to them as it was a place of unequal shame. Gehenna was a dump that many executed bodies were thrown into and burned to rid the city of them. It was a place of dishonor "where the worm (maggots) never die."
John Piper, as godly as he is, and I have much respect for him, is blinded by tradition. He does not take on the whole of Universalism but tries to build a sermon on one small section of Scripture. I'm sure it had its intended affect with the intended audience.
Through my own trials at my own church I have learned that UR is a utter disaster to the established church. It destroys their authority over the lives of the masses.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
And in some cases it, destroys their imagined 'purpose' as well. Our pastor, in his intro. sermon against "universalism" (his straw-man version of it) stated that "if hell is not eternal, then I quit, right now!"
Quote from: Doc on May 07, 2009, 11:07:18 PM
And in some cases it, destroys their imagined 'purpose' as well. Our pastor, in his intro. sermon against "universalism" (his straw-man version of it) stated that "if hell is not eternal, then I quit, right now!"
:cloud9: I'd call it more of a revealer of the true motive of the heart. If someone is, in essence, only serving God out of fear, that's not love for God, but love for self (attempt at self preservation).
What they're really saying is, "If nothing is going to happen to me if I don't serve Him, why should I?"
There's also usually some pride mixed in there with that attitude also, because they only want it to feel superior to those who aren't "serving" Him, as in, "Well, if I have to suffer thru this serving and all it entails, then they better have to suffer worse, if they don't serve Him!"
The mess of the "coils of the snake" we were lowered into; they turn every which way, their way is never straight. :laughing7: Thank God for the HG who uncovers the hidden things of the heart. Blessings...
Quote from: Cardinal on May 08, 2009, 12:59:38 AM
Quote from: Doc on May 07, 2009, 11:07:18 PM
And in some cases it, destroys their imagined 'purpose' as well. Our pastor, in his intro. sermon against "universalism" (his straw-man version of it) stated that "if hell is not eternal, then I quit, right now!"
:cloud9: I'd call it more of a revealer of the true motive of the heart. If someone is, in essence, only serving God out of fear, that's not love for God, but love for self (attempt at self preservation).
What they're really saying is, "If nothing is going to happen to me if I don't serve Him, why should I?"
There's also usually some pride mixed in there with that attitude also, because they only want it to feel superior to those who aren't "serving" Him, as in, "Well, if I have to suffer thru this serving and all it entails, then they better have to suffer worse, if they don't serve Him!"
The mess of the "coils of the snake" we were lowered into; they turn every which way, their way is never straight. :laughing7: Thank God for the HG who uncovers the hidden things of the heart. Blessings...
Those things are certainly true. I got the impression that what he was saying by his statement was, why go through all the hardship of serving (in the capacity of 'rescuing souls from hell') if hell (or perhaps more properly, the LOF) is not permanent anyway? In other words, he didn't see any point in serving if he wasn't doing it to help snatch people from future endless misery.
Sad, really.
Quote from: Doc on May 08, 2009, 01:23:53 AM
Those things are certainly true. I got the impression that what he was saying by his statement was, why go through all the hardship of serving (in the capacity of 'rescuing souls from hell') if hell (or perhaps more properly, the LOF) is not permanent anyway? In other words, he didn't see any point in serving if he wasn't doing it to help snatch people from future endless misery.
Sad, really.
If he really listened to his own words he would see the condition of his own heart. The glee that the popular religious leaders throughout Christian history has shown towards the unimaginable suffering, pain and torment of the "unchosen" is chilling. It is wasn't that long ago that I was in their camp.
Quote from: Cardinal on May 08, 2009, 12:59:38 AM
Quote from: Doc on May 07, 2009, 11:07:18 PM
And in some cases it, destroys their imagined 'purpose' as well. Our pastor, in his intro. sermon against "universalism" (his straw-man version of it) stated that "if hell is not eternal, then I quit, right now!"
:cloud9: I'd call it more of a revealer of the true motive of the heart. If someone is, in essence, only serving God out of fear, that's not love for God, but love for self (attempt at self preservation).
It is an amazing statement ("if hell is not eternal, then I quit, right now!") even though it's hard to blame the person when they are taught over and over "we are to sacrifice everything temporal because something eternal is at stake for the lost".
First of all NO-ONE lives up to the perceived level of sacrifice needed to save souls from eternal hell and so there must be some guilt AND some mental justification going on (ie: "I'm sacrificing more than most people though").
Since I never believed in afterlife punishment I never have experienced that but I do experience an overwhelming sense of "sacrifice everything temporal to live in the eternal realm now and help others do so".
It's like - what would I NOT sacrifice to rescue someone I greatly loved from great temporal agony? I'm sure not as much as I 'should' but surely just as much as those I know and have known who are supposing their actions (or inaction) will change eternal fates.
Hi Jabcat,
I'll take a stab at John Piper's article below. I've been away for a week in Florida with the family. Didn't get much studying in though, so I'm itching to get back to it :bigGrin:
Quote from: jabcat on May 05, 2009, 09:17:58 AM
WHY HOPE? GOSPEL! [edited for length]
Colossians 1:15-23
15) He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16) for in him all things 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. 17) He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18) He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19) For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20) and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21) And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22) he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23) provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul became a minister.
...
In verses 19-20 some people choke on the possibility that Paul is teaching universalism, namely, that all creatures will eventually be saved and none will be punished forever. It says, "For in him (i.e., Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (or: God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him) and (v. 20) through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
I'm not sure why people would choke on the possibility of "universalism", but I guess the truth does that.
It seems that John Piper is making the mistake that all of us has made in the past: he is approaching the scripture with a preconceived idea that
God must send people to hell for eternitiy. Therefore the above scripture cannot mean the plain reading. "All things" being reconciled cannot mean every person is saved because that contradicts our preconceived idea.
Quote
Does this mean that one day God will reconcile to himself all unbelievers who have ever lived and even the devil? I don't think so. That would certainly contradict things he says elsewhere (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1:9). Let me suggest one possible solution.
2 Thes 1:9 speaks of "everlasting destruction" from the Lord. Of course the correct rendering is "eonian" or "age-lasting" destruction, but again that would contradict the preconceived notion that
God must send some people to hell eternally.Quote
This is the way I think we are to understand Colossians 1:20. Look how the paragraph is organized. The scope of verse 15-17 is all creation. The whole universe is in view. And the point is that Christ is preeminent over all creation, because he made it and he holds it all together.
But then in verses 18-21 the focus shifts and the scope is no longer the whole universe but the new creation, namely the church. Notice how verse 18 turns from creation to the church:[/b] "He is the head of the body, the church." Then it speaks of his being the first-born from the dead, that is he was the great first fruits of the new creation, the church that will one day rise from the dead and fill the earth with his glory.
Then, in this context of the church, we read verse 20, that "he will reconcile all things to himself in heaven and on earth." So I think the "all things" in verse 20 should be limited the same way the "all" in 3:11 was limited. Christ created all things in the old creation and he is preeminent over all (that is the point of verses 15-17). And everything that belongs to the new creation he will reconcile to himself and be head over all, (that is the point of verses 18-20). The Lord reigns. And he will save his people and subdue his enemies.
Yes verse 18 refers to the church, but he seems to be "cherry-picking" this as context for the rest of the verses. Continuing on in verse 18 we see he is pre-eminent in "everything", and that He is the beginning. Why not choose those as the context instead? Likewise the clear context of verse 20 of "all things" is completely ignored. Its not just all things in the church. Its all things in heaven and on the earth. That seems fairly clear.
Yet if we must continue with the preconceived idea (
God must send some to hell eternally), then clearly the context of "all things" in verse 20 must be misconstrued into referring only to "the church". And by the way, the reference to "head of the church" is only one quality of Christ being described there, its not meant to set the context for what Christ is reigining over. We know from many other places all (truly everything) has been given to Christ and Christ will put all things under His feet.
In cases like this, it is instructive to ask why wasn't the text made clearer if in fact God is only reconciling the church?
Why does verse 20 not read "and through him to reconcile to himself all things in the church", and why again bother to add the qualifier "in heaven and in earth"? It doesn't follow. The fact that it specifies "in heaven and in earth" further reinforces it means all things, because it just said in verse 16 that He created all things, "in heaven and in earth".
Quote...
And therefore it will reach to every people and tongue and tribe and nation; the ransomed will be called; the full number of the gentiles will come in; the eyes of all Israel will be opened; and the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Sounds pretty URish to me.
Quote
The wheat and the tares will be divided: one into the furnace of fire, the other into the masters granary. And those who have believed the gospel will shine like the Son in the kingdom of their Father. And they shall reign for ever and ever in light.
Of course there is much misinterpretation going on here. What are the tares? What is the furnace of fire? Is it truly eternal or only eonian? etc. And no one reigns for ever and ever...
Quote
This is the great global hope of the gospel! Let him who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires take the water of life without price. Receive the gospel. Stand in it. Hold it fast. There is no other hope than "the hope of the gospel"! Amen!
You addressed this one already jabcat. Sounds pretty hopeful for everyone (even if they don't believe it right now). Let him who is thirsty come. Who will not be thirsty on that day?
Anyway this seems pretty standard fare. Start with the preconceived idea:
God must send some to hell eternally, and you will "reinterpret" the scripture to fit. We all probably did this at some point. Anyway, not too much effort to refute this one.
Since it seems easy to refute this to me, why do more people not believe? God hasn't enabled them yet - they are still under the strong delusion so they believe the traditions of man (preconceived ideas).
Counter question: Is "God will save all" a preconceived idea?
Peace.
:thumbsup: Good! Welcome back.
As far as the last question, I wonder that sometmes, if I want to believe it so badly that my vision is distorted. However, I don't see how I could ever ignore the inconsistencies in the old belief system, and the things God has revealed.
Oh yes, I'm up to the challenge! But not exactly, as to how your E.T. friends see these verses! So let's add a little shock value for them! Please, feel free to copy and paste as you see fit!
Christ the First-born of all the creation
The word "first-born" comes to the New Testament with a rich heritage. The Hebrews had a custom of conferring special birthright privileges on their oldest sons. The eldest son of a father would receive the double portion of the family's inheritance. The well-known story of Jacob tricking his father Isaac into conferring on him - rather than on the first-born-Esau all the family blessing is typical of this culture (Gen 27:32). There is a deeper nuance to the meaning of this word "first-born." The Greek word for "first" can mean either a first in time or first in status, regardless of birth position. The "first-born" may designate one who is given the honor of chief rank, that is, the first place. This usage can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, as when Jacob summons his son to bequeath his patriarchal blessing on them, he designates Reuben as "my first-born" preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. (Gen 40 9:3)
Although Reubin is "first-born" in time, the prominent idea is his status in dignity. This is clearly the meaning in Jeremiah 31:9 where God calls Ephraim his "first-born" even though Ephraim's brother, Manasseh, was the elder of the two. Or when God calls Israel his first-born son in Exodus 4:22 and commands Pharaoh to "let my son go that he may worship me." (v.23) The concept has to do with Israel's precedence in importance over Egypt as far as God's plans were concerned. The classic instance of this idea of pre-eminence of rank is in the Messianic Psalms 89 where God, in glowing words, speaks of the coming promise Davidic king, the Lord Messiah:
Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.' 27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28 My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. 29 I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens.
In the spirit of prophecy, God announces that this king's superior position is a matter of appointment, not the time of birth. Furthermore, God makes his appointed king "the highest [in status and rank] of the kings of the earth." Thus, when the apostle applies the term "first-born" to the son of God in Colossians 1, he is using a well-known OT Messianic description. In fact, the expression is repeated a few verses later, where Paul writes, "He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead" (v.18). The different qualifier here is noteworthy. Whereas in verse 15 the Son is the "first-born" of all creation," here the Son is the "first-born from the dead." If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism, where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" means the same thing.
The thought is clearly that Jesus the son of God is the first man of God's new creation, because he is the first man ever to be raised to immortality. Christ return is the beginning of the eschatological resurrection. His resurrection is the promise and the guarantee that God's new order of reality has begun. The church is that new community in prospect. This confirms that the subject matter under discussion is not the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth, but rather the creation of the church, the body of believers who constitute God's new humanity, the New Man(kind). For this reason, he is the beginning (arche which has an ambivalence, and can mean either the ruler or chief, or origin or beginning, v. 18) Either way, Jesus as the first-raised from the dead is the origin of God's new creation, and he is in consequence of this priority and resurrection also the highest in rank "so that he himself might come to have first place in everything" (v.18). However, whether we take the term firstborn to mean first in relation to time or first in relation to rank, this much is at least clear, that taken in its natural sense, the expression and firstborn excludes the notion of an uncreated, eternal being.
To be born requires a beginning. In order to verify our findings so far, we must look at the second part of the phrase that the son is "the first-born of all creation."
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Paul
Part 2
Christ the Head of the New Creation
The various popular English translation are at odds as to whether the Son is "the first-born over all creation" (as in the NIV and NK JV), thus first in rank, or whether he is "the firstborn of all creation" (which reflects a literal translation of the genitive case, as in the KJV, RV and NASB), meaning first in time, which would refer to Christ being the first-created being of creation.
We evidently need the wider context to determine which nuance fits best. It is clear that Paul continues his line of thought in the next verse, as he uses the conjunction "for": "For in 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" (v.16). Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Remember Jesus has a God"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (1Co 8:6)
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.
Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not "the heavens and the earth" as per Genesis 1:1, but rather "all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.
This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after "the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).
All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ's exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ's] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus' obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).
It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.
If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.
Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments
NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
There is no God in the flesh hybrid (Theos aner) in these verses.
If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.
One issue is God can not die. So if Jesus was God then he would have had to pretend to die and thus there would not be any forgiveness of sin because he really didn't die.
Let's see who can forgive sins.
Mat 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."
Mat 9:6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."
Mar 2:7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"
John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them,"Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
Jesus never forgave sins before He was anointed with God's Spirit. And now the Apostles have the ability to forgive sins, once again only after Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles are now Agents of Jesus the Christ and "have authority on earth to forgive sins". How? Because as the Father has sent Me, I also send you
Paul
Preach it, Brother Paul! (and please read your pm's) :bigGrin:
:cloud9: I hear you Paul........He who ascended is also He who descended, and it was not the carnal flesh of the man Jesus. He said the Word of God is your mouth, and it is, even the very breath of the One who descended, the One whose Spirit is the breath, AND the agency for and of change (of orders, declaring that which is not like Him into that which IS). For we shall not all sleep (in the dust realm as the serpent's meat), but we shall all be changed. :winkgrin: Blessings...
Hey Paul, I had a question. If Jesus did not exist along side God before he was put on Earth, then who is the "us" referring to in such verses as that of Genesis 1:26?
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Just curious, but I definitely thought your post was interesting! Some info to chew on lol
Well, not to answer for Paul, but it's interesting to note that in that passage God is elohim, which is plural. The same as when Jesus said to the Pharisees, "have I not said that you are gods?" (elohim)
Hmm..., I donno, but it sounds like polytheism to me! Although, I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the Jews believed. Could the "us" be God and the Holy Spirit? Although, I've heard it suggested that the Holy Spirit is more or less the Spirit of God, as opposed to some "separate" person of God. But, I also do believe it says something about the Holy Spirit being grieved (I think Paul the Apostle mentions it within the New Testament), which would seem to suggest that he/it is a "separate" part of God. It's confusing!
Quote from: Tim B on May 20, 2009, 10:39:24 PM
Hmm..., I donno, but it sounds like polytheism to me! Although, I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the Jews believed. Could the "us" be God and the Holy Spirit? Although, I've heard it suggested that the Holy Spirit is more or less the Spirit of God, as opposed to some "separate" person of God. But, I also do believe it says something about the Holy Spirit being grieved (I think Paul the Apostle mentions it within the New Testament), which would seem to suggest that he/it is a "separate" part of God. It's confusing!
This is from the same set of scriptures that say the Lord God is ONE, (yet He is also plural, hence elohim which is plural). It's not polytheism, it's what the scripture says. There is only one God. But there apparently are also "gods" (little g). This must refer to sons of God.
Quote from: Doc on May 21, 2009, 12:23:01 AM
Quote from: Tim B on May 20, 2009, 10:39:24 PM
Hmm..., I donno, but it sounds like polytheism to me! Although, I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the Jews believed. Could the "us" be God and the Holy Spirit? Although, I've heard it suggested that the Holy Spirit is more or less the Spirit of God, as opposed to some "separate" person of God. But, I also do believe it says something about the Holy Spirit being grieved (I think Paul the Apostle mentions it within the New Testament), which would seem to suggest that he/it is a "separate" part of God. It's confusing!
This is from the same set of scriptures that say the Lord God is ONE, (yet He is also plural, hence elohim which is plural). It's not polytheism, it's what the scripture says. There is only one God. But there apparently are also "gods" (little g). This must refer to sons of God.
Ah, okay. That makes a little more sense. Still makes me wonder though, what exactly it means. Does it suggest that "the sons of God" were around prior to their existence on Earth?
Quote from: Tim B on May 21, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
Quote from: Doc on May 21, 2009, 12:23:01 AM
Quote from: Tim B on May 20, 2009, 10:39:24 PM
Hmm..., I donno, but it sounds like polytheism to me! Although, I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the Jews believed. Could the "us" be God and the Holy Spirit? Although, I've heard it suggested that the Holy Spirit is more or less the Spirit of God, as opposed to some "separate" person of God. But, I also do believe it says something about the Holy Spirit being grieved (I think Paul the Apostle mentions it within the New Testament), which would seem to suggest that he/it is a "separate" part of God. It's confusing!
This is from the same set of scriptures that say the Lord God is ONE, (yet He is also plural, hence elohim which is plural). It's not polytheism, it's what the scripture says. There is only one God. But there apparently are also "gods" (little g). This must refer to sons of God.
Ah, okay. That makes a little more sense. Still makes me wonder though, what exactly it means. Does it suggest that "the sons of God" were around prior to their existence on Earth?
That's what Origen believed, and a number of folks around here have seriously toyed with the idea, including me. I'm not sure myself, but I suppose it's possible. It's tough to clearly support from scripture.
So... I once existed prior to Earth? That's a strange idea. Honestly, I'm not sure I buy that. Wouldn't that mean that Jesus probably existed too before He was created as the Son of God? Honestly, thinking it was God "and" the Holy Spirit makes more sense to me. But then again, Hell used to make more sense to me (well, honestly, it didn't make much sense at all, and scared the heck outta me), and I've had my mind changed. :bigGrin: Meanwhile, it's some interesting stuff to discuss.
BTW, Origen = Win lol
....the spirit will return to God who gave it. Ecc. 12:7 If something returns, I believe it was already there before...as a "piece" of God? :dontknow: (Eph. 5:30 because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;) or something else/some other explanation, I'm not sure...but it returns...I believe pre-existence in some manner...ideas?
Quote from: jabcat on May 22, 2009, 07:45:28 AM
....the spirit will return to God who gave it. Ecc. 12:7 If something returns, I believe it was already there before...as a "piece" of God? :dontknow: (Eph. 5:30 because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;) or something else/some other explanation, I'm not sure...but it returns...I believe pre-existence in some manner...ideas?
In another thread, WillieH pointed me to the parable of the prodigal son. Note that the prodigal son in the story was with the father before he left, as well as after he returned.
:thumbsup: Good point.
Quote from: jabcat on May 05, 2009, 09:17:58 AM...one of the 'heavy hitters' in the ET camp...
Slight correction, if not correction then clarification is in order. There are no heavy hitters with eternal torment. There are some PHENOMENAL Bible teachers, theologians, and pastors that UNFORTUNATELY happen to believe the eternal torment HERESY. They all become light weights when they go there with the eternal torment nonsense, eternal separation, or whatever their current politically correct terminology for God's eternal hatred that they preach that I can't find in the Bible after a few things got corrected in my understanding from the Scriptures. But there are no heavy hitters with eternal torment, in terms of someone having thrown a Scriptural slam dunk.
The moment someone goes into some version of eternal duality, they've shown how little they currently know of the Scriptures, even if on a subject or two, or even a dozen, in the Scriptures, your head just went numb on how they tied the Scriptures together and brain tissue's running out of your ears and messing up your shoes and making it look like you're standing in swiss cheese. Every single person who believes the eternal torment lie, eternal separation, eternal death, eternal annihilation, or whatever version of it they want to believe in -- every single one of 'em have the fear of death, no matter what. They're afraid of losing someone to it, if not themselves. While that's the case, they're not really free. And they've poisoned so much of the culture with it, so that even reprobates are scared to death and prevented from living excellent lives [within the range of their level of light] because of that.
There is zero fear without the fear of death; fear of any kind is always the fear of death. Was watching the new Star Trek movie that came out last year and James T. Kirk had to jump after someone without a parachute in one scene and then his own parachute didn't work, and without ruining the movie for anyone that hasn't seen it, basically their bacon was saved by someone skillfully using their transporter technology, though barely/narrowly 'cause of how fast they were falling.
Not too many Christians could have made that jump miles high after someone BECAUSE of the eternal torment lie that keeps 'em from living extraordinary lives. Most people in countries with a heavy Christian influence [as Christianity is currently known and generally interpreted by the mainstream of it's adherents] couldn't have made that jump either without having had a total heart attack. A lot of Post Traumatic Stress is from the eternal torment lie, even when you're dealing with soldiers. It's more of a subliminal to where I realize the argument this could cause with almost anyone 'til they were willing to really really meticulously disect those kinds of situations, and even then they might not see it for years on that one. But what makes death horrific is the lie that anyone can be separated from His love, and that we might legitimately never see someone ever again.
The degree to which someone believes the eternal torment lie is the end of excellence in their studies and meditations, their teachings and their lifestyle. The degree to which they believe the eternal torment lie, or some version of it; some modification of it that bottomlines in eternity so that other versions aren't the less gruesome because of the issue of eternity -- to the degree that one believes that, one is not in love with their God and His Wisdom, if they're of a sound mind and a pure conscience. To the degree that someone believes the eternal loss lie, I'm not sure that a pure conscience is possible without a degree of insanity in their thoughts, emotions, behaviour, expectations, and productivity.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIkQ7YVys_A