Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: All = Some

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: All = Some

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: All = Some

I have a confession to make.  When it comes to profile pics, I don’t just randomly pick a photo, I look through all my recent photos and choose the best one, or better yet, I take twenty-five pictures knowing that one of them is bound to look better than the others.  The process is called “cherry picking” – selectively choosing the best from what is available.  It is a common practice that may or may not be morally sound, depending on the situation.  And it has a lot to do with inductive versus deductive logic.  What is the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic?  Glad you asked.

Induction:

A process of reasoning that moves from specific instances to predict general principles.

Deduction:

A process of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific.

Suppose you are given a basket of cherries, and they all look perfect.  You might assume that most of the cherries in the orchard look like the ones in the basket.  Or it could go the other way around.  You could be given a basket of small, misshapen, discolored cherries and you might assume they came from a diseased or neglected orchard.  The truth is that the person who picks the cherries can create an image of the orchard based on selection.  And what does all of this have to do with induction or deduction?  It is the way your mind works as you hold the basket of cherries and consider the orchard.  Maybe your opinion of the orchard is based on inductive logic.  If this is the case, then you will go through a process of reasoning in which you base your opinion of the entire orchard (general principles) on one hand picked basket (specific instances).  This is NOT an intelligent way to make sense of the world.  In contrast, you may base your opinion of the orchard on deductive logic.  If this is the case, then your process of reasoning about the orchard will not begin when you are handed a basket, because you won’t be willing to form an opinion about the orchard until you have examined, individually, most or all of the cherry trees for yourself.

In the orchard of theology, it is best to examine every tree.  In Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, he advises readers regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22 and similar scriptures,

You’ve got to figure out from the context what “all” means.

I agree with Chan’s statement, that the context of “all” determines just how far “all” extends.  For example, in the previous blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: The Anathema of Scrutiny, I wrote,

My Spanish 1 instructor, Professor Farcau, assigned each student in her class a number and informed the students, “In la clase de Spanish 1, all will give an oral presentation.”  Then, she said, “All who have been assigned numbers one through twenty will present on Monday.”  The students assigned numbers twenty-one and up did not assume that they were exempt from giving an oral presentation, because they had already been told that everyone would give a presentation.  They knew that they would give their oral presentations in a class period other than Monday.

How ridiculous would it be if I thought that when my instructor said “all”, she meant that every human being, from Adam to present day, would be required to give an oral presentation in my UCF Spanish 1 class?  Obviously, the context of her statement tells me to what extent “all” goes, that is, it applies only to the students in Spanish 1.

The problem with Chan’s advice, is that he does not apply it, at least, not in the section of the book to which it refers.  Chan lists four passages of scripture regarding Christian Universalism that he calls “The Big Ones” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 1:19-20, 1 Timothy 2:4). Rather than examining each of these scriptures (reasoning from deduction), Chan cherry picks some misleading information on only two of them, and then ignores the other two, instead referencing a basket full of cherries from an entirely different orchard, cherries that are similar to my Spanish 1 class example, where the extent of “all” is limited by the context.  He concludes,

So “all” doesn’t always mean everything or everyone.  And the same goes for 1 Corinthians 15:22, as is clear from the context.  The “all” who will be made alive in Christ refers to believers of all types, not every single person.

While it is true that “all” does not always mean everything or everyone, it is also true that “all” is not always limited to “all types” or some other subset.  Chan draws attention to the truth that suits his argument, while he draws attention away from the other truth that is just as valid.  Proving that “all” is sometimes limited to all types in no way negates the fact that “all” is in fact used many times throughout scripture to mean everything or everyone.  For example,

[…] for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God […] Romans 3:23

And we are as unclean – all of us, and as a garment passing away, all our righteous acts; and we fade as a leaf – all of us. Isaiah 64:5-6

Thou [art] He, O Jehovah, Thyself — Thou hast made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth andall that [are] on it, the seas and all that [are] in them, and Thou art keeping all of them alive […] Nehemiah 9:5-6

All of us like sheep have wandered, each to his own way we have turned, and Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, the punishment of us all.  Isaiah 53:6

Righteous [is] Jehovah in all His ways, And kind in all His works. Psalm 145:17

Let’s have a look at Chan’s “The Big Ones”:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.  1 Corinthians 15:22

[…] that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.  2 Corinthians 5:19

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-20

[God, our Savior] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4

The context of “all” 1 Corinthians 15:22, is specifically stated, that is, the people group in Adam.  It is a compound sentence which begins with the word “as”, indicating that the first thought cannot stand alone.  The Greek word for “as” is,

5618 hṓsper (an emphatic adverb, derived from 4007 /per, “indeed” intensifying 5613 /hōs, “as”) – “indeed just as,” “just exactly like.”

If all that Paul wrote was “As in Adam all die”, readers would look for what comes next, and if the “next” were not there, readers would wonder why Paul began a thought and didn’t conclude it.  They would ask, “Just exactly like what?”  The context demands that we continue reading in order to understand the point.  It is very similar to the “if/then” sentence structure in logic.  If this happens, then that happens.   The first part of the compound sentence is connected to the second part with the word “so”.  In Greek, the word “so” is,

3779 hoútō (an adverb, derived from the demonstrative pronoun, 3778 /hoútos, “this”) – like this . . .; in this manner, in this way (fashion), in accordance with this description (i.e. corresponding to what follows); in keeping withalong this linein the manner spoken.

If we use common sense to put it all together, we see this:

Indeed, just as, just exactly like “In Adam all die”, like this, in this manner, in this way, in accordance with this description, in keeping with, along this line, in the manner spoken, “In Christ all will be made alive.”

Let’s pretend that Paul wants to write about “all”, but he sees that there is an exception.  Do you think he will take the time to specify the exception?  Yes, he will.  In fact, he does, so we don’t need to pretend at all.  Paul writes,

[…] for all things he did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that he is excepted who did subject the all things to him, and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.  1 Corinthians 15:27-28

Here, Paul first states “for all things [Jesus] did put under his feet”.  Some people may point out that if Jesus is included in the category of “all things”, then does this mean that Jesus is subjecting himself to himself?  That’s very strange.  So Paul clarifies that there is an exception to the group named “all things” and writes, “when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that he is excepted who did subject the all things to him”.  Why would Paul take the time to be so specific and clear about this, a case in which there is a single exception to “all”, but not also take the time to be specific and clear about a case in which there are literally millions of exceptions?

If eternal torment in Hell is true, and the majority of mankind is headed there, why would Paul be so careless as to make the misleading statement, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” without being specific and clear about the billions of exceptions?  Think about it.  Shouldn’t Paul, in order to be consistent, have written, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, and when one may say that all will be made alive, [it is] evident that all who do not have faith before death are excepted who will be made alive?

The reasonable response is not to write Paul off as some kind of irresponsible fruitcake but to conclude that Paul says exactly what he means to say, even if orthodox churchianity pitches a fit about it.

This isn’t the only time that Paul communicates the idea that all people will be made alive.  Many of Paul’s writings contain a universalist perspective.  Here’s another example of the Adam/Jesus parallel,

[…] just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.  The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more […] Romans 5:18-20

Moving right along, now, the context of 2 Corinthians 5:19 in which God is reconciling “the world” to himself,  demonstrates the broad implications of “the world”:

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.  So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

The skeptic might object, “Aha!  It says ‘anyone in Christ’!  That means the ‘all’ doesn’t apply to unbelievers!”

To this I would reply, “Not so fast.”

Notice first that “one died for all”.  Most believers would take this to mean that Jesus died for the world, for everyone.  Then Paul (and possibly Timothy) writes about a subgroup of the “all”, that is, “those who live”.  What does this mean?  It can’t mean “live” in the physical sense, as in respiration and pulse, because the not-yet-believers during this time also have a respiration and pulse.  So, “live” must be about the life that transcends physical existence, the life to which Jesus refers in His intercessory prayer, “[…] and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send […]”, the life which begins in the faith of Jesus Christ.  Paul reminds the believers that it hasn’t always been this way, that there was a time when they were not yet “a new creation” because they “once regarded Christ […] from a worldly point of view”.  He states plainly that this subgroup has been “reconciled” through Christ for a purpose.  What is that purpose?  Paul calls it the “ministry of reconciliation”, and they have been given a message to communicate with the world, those who are not in the subgroup, the rest of the “all” for whom Jesus died.  What is the message?  Reconciliation!  Not counting people’s sins against them!

So, Christ did, in fact, die for all – for the whole world, not just a select few, and this is the same “world” that is being reconciled to God through Christ.

This begs the question, was the death of Christ effective?  Did Jesus accomplish His mission?  That’s another blog for another day.  The point here is that Chan would have us to believe that when Paul writes “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” that Paul really means a small percentage of “the world”.  The non-cherry-picking context indicates otherwise.

I really won’t need to spend much time on Colossians 1:19-20, for obvious reasons.  When Chan suggests looking at the context, I have to wonder how he could have missed this.  “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”  Here, we see “all things” qualified for us, that is, “whether things on earth or things in heaven”.  This is such a loaded verse!  I will return to this in another blog.  For now, unbiased readers can see that the extent of this “all” is as broad and inclusive as the Greek language will allow it to be.

Finally, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, “[God, our Savior] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  Chan formulates an argument based on what it means to say that God “wants” something.  I will address this concept in another blog and, for now, concentrate on the “all” argument Chan makes.  The context of 1 Timothy 2:4, does, as Chan asserts, refer to all types of people.  But the context is specific that the PRAYER should be offered up for all types of people.  We should pray for all people, not just the ones we happen to like.  However, we must ask, does God want all types of people to be saved, or just some types of people?  Does this passage exclude people or does it include people?  Does our PRAYING for specific people groups negate the idea that God wants all people to be saved?  Chan admits,

It’s probably the case that Paul wants Timothy to pray for all types of people because God is on a mission to save all types of people.

If God is on a mission to save all types of people, does this mean that some types of people will NOT be saved?  Again, does naming a few particular subsets of the whole, such as the subset called “people in authority”, exclude the remainder of the “all”?  Let’s look at the reason Paul gives for praying for “all” men:

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men: for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity, for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth; for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, who did give himself a ransom for all – the testimony in its own times.

Notice it does not say that God wants all “types” of people to be saved, nor does it say Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all “types” of people.  This is Chan’s idea.  One simple way to settle the dispute between Chan’s orthodox view and my unorthodox view is to ask one simple question.

Did Jesus give Himself as a ransom for all people or just all types of people?  More specifically, did Jesus give Himself as a ransom ONLY for those who believe before they die, or did He give Himself as a ransom for everyone?  If we are to take Chan’s argument seriously, we will have to say that Jesus died ONLY for those who believe.  The implications are huge.  We’ve all heard evangelists preach, “Jesus died for you.”  If Chan is right, then evangelists need to stop giving people false hope.  They should preach, “Jesus died for SOME of you.”  Do you think Chan would be willing to adjust his evangelistic message in this way?  If he really believes what he writes, then he ought to do so.  And if he is unwilling to do so, then we ought to wonder why.  Perhaps when he looks people in the eye, the fear of God gets ahold of him, and the Spirit of God enables him to preach the truth, “Jesus died for everyone”, despite his beliefs.

 

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Now or Never

Comments
  • Lanny A. Eichert October 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Jesus died for everyone, but ONLY those who “believe” during this mortal life will be saved both in this life and the life to come. He died with the sins of only human beings, not *angels. The admonition to believe is never given after death in Scripture, because death will make a believer of everyone. That’s when reality is made certain and every tongue spontaneously confesses Jesus Christ really is Lord. That’s why the rich man in Luke 16 didn’t ask how to leave hell. Consider that his confession.

    *Satan and his angels will NOT escape the Lake of Fire because their sins are not ever forgiven: they were never substitutionally place on Christ.

    • admin October 14, 2011 at 12:34 am

      What do you make of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison from the time of Noah? I figure that He is preaching so they will believe, otherwise, He’s just preaching when their fate is already sealed, which makes no sense.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 2:57 am

        For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

        Wasn’t Christ in that Spirit when Noah walked the earth? Wasn’t that same Spirit convicting the sinners hearing Noah’s preaching? Didn’t Noah preach in the power of that Spirit? Weren’t the spirits of the men that heard Noah preaching imprisoned by their sins? Aren’t they now spirits imprisoned in hell today since the flood, even as they were when Jesus died and when Peter wrote? Was there ever an invitation recorded given?

        Beware: what YOU figure isn’t good enough; only what the Scriptures say is.

        The best is “by which (Holy Spirit) also he went and preached” (in Noah’s day) “to the (disobedient men’s) spirits (who now in Peter’s day are) in prison (hell).”

        Allowing for two different time references solves your nonsense problem. The Mormons use this passage to justify their second chance doctrine and this passage along with 1 Corinthians 15: 29. Both texts have no support elsewhere, so anybody can make anything from them they want. No “interpretation” has any “authority.”

        • admin October 14, 2011 at 8:35 am

          I don’t understand where you stand on this. Do you believe Jesus preached to people in hell? yes/no

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm

            No. He preached way back in Noah’s day by the Holy Spirit resident in living Noah to the disobedient human spirits resident in those living sinner men who mocked Noah. Christ’s Spirit preach through mortal Noah to the mortal men living in Noah’s neighborhood. God’s Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, through Peter reminds us those disobedient men are now dead and their spirits are now in hell prison. Have I made myself clear?

            The real issue I’m trying to impress upon you is Jesus did NOT atone for the sins of fallen angels. So what does that MEAN?

            It means fallen angels CANNOT be saved, CANNOT be reconciled to God, because there is NO JUST reason to pardon their sins. Justice demands the sentence against them be accomplished in the Lake of Fire.

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 13, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Can Christ’s death on the cross reconcile demons and angels and Satan, himself, without the sentence against their evil work being satisfied, propitiated? Their sins were never substitutionally placed on Christ. Remember they sinned BEFORE the curse that resulted from Adam’s sin. Doesn’t your Amazing Hope get also them freed from the Lake of Fire? How, Alice?

    • admin October 14, 2011 at 12:28 am

      The scriptures say very little about the question you ask. But all things in heaven, on earth, under the earth seems to be as inclusive as it gets. Regarding your comment about when sin originated – I’m not sure how that factors in, maybe you can explain your thought a little further so I know what you are saying.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 3:35 am

        You cannot claim ignorance based on lack of evidence and still publish your Amazing Hope if it includes reconciliation of the Devil and his angels. So does Amazing Hope or does it not include reconciliation of the Devil and his angels?

        I think my 4:55 pm question is quite simple and there is ample Scripture for an authoritative answer.

        There are two origins of sin that matters to this discussion: sin into the angelic race predating sin into the human race. It is sin in the human race that brought the curse upon the creature (creation) and these only (the human race and the creature) are reconcilable by the blood of Christ.

        But all things in heaven, on earth, under the earth must EXCLUDE the angels that sinned (and what goes with them) based on what evidence we DO HAVE. See my October 14, 2011 at 2:04 am post below.

        • admin October 14, 2011 at 8:32 am

          1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?
          Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.
          Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
          Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.

          I can’t agree with you because of these.

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 12:13 pm

            Angels means “messengers” and here applies to human ministers.

            God’s justice was satisfied on the cross for ONLY human sins, not (spirit) angels’ sins. Hebrews 2 clearly states they have NO kinsman redeemer.

            Why will you NOT believe there is NO redemption for angels?? Because you approach Scripture with this Amazing Hope you must justify. Also because you are unregenerated and blinded by Satan and headed to hell and the Lake of Fire, where all LIARS go. Change your mind, repent, believe, and be saved.

            Let Scripture be understood by Scripture, not your doctrines of men. God’s omission of angelic redemption is so obvious in Scripture, please notice “which things the angels desire to look into” at the end of 1 Peter 1: 12 and why the church is on display to the angelic hosts, good as well as bad.

  • Mary Vanderplas October 13, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    I agree with what you say about the importance of considering all of the relevant texts, each one in its context. I think, too, that you’re right on in pointing out that the fact that “all” isn’t always all-inclusive doesn’t mean that that it isn’t all-inclusive in some texts and that the only way to determine whether it is or is not is to examine each text on its own.

    Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22, I think you’re right that the “all” is inclusive of the whole human race. While some argue that the correspondence here between “in Adam all” and “in Christ all” isn’t exactly parallel, but rather analogous, I am inclined to agree with you that Paul intended the “all” in both parts to be inclusive of the whole of humanity. I don’t think, though, that the adverbs that are used here entirely rule out the possibility of it being an analogy. I do agree that the verses following, which picture the whole of creation in subjection to God/Christ, strongly suggests that “all” embraces all humans. Regarding your point about Paul being careful to point out that Christ isn’t included in the “all” that will be put in subjection to him, I don’t see this as convincing evidence that “all” must mean all other humans, Christ being the only exception. It seems more likely that Paul is here simply making the point that Christ, as the agent of God in bringing about the final triumph of God’s reign, is not included in the creation.

    I like your take on 2 Corinthians 5:19, though I think that what Paul is talking about here isn’t just individuals becoming new, having this “life that transcends physical existence,” as you put it, but the coming into being of a new creation – i.e., the world becoming new – because of what God has done in Christ. I agree, though, that believers are those who have entered into, or oriented their lives to, this new world and that they are given the role of ambassadors of Christ bringing the message of God’s saving act for the whole world.

    I agree, too, that the Colossians text asserts the all-encompassing breadth of God’s act of reconciliation in Christ.

    I like what you say about the 1 Timothy 2 text. I would add that I think that the injunction to pray specifically for people in high places (in a society where emperor worship was the state religion) was intended to help the readers adopt an attitude whereby they would be able to “lead a quiet and peaceable life” and share the good news of God’s saving act (for all) with others around them. You make a good point that praying for certain groups doesn’t negate God’s intention that all be saved and that the injunction to pray for everyone is linked to God’s desire/intention that everyone be saved. I agree that this is a compelling universalist text and that reducing “all people” to “all types of people” has no warrant in the text.

    Your questions are penetrating. I agree that it is hard to imagine taking Chan’s argument seriously – i.e., that God is on a mission to save only some, namely, those who believe before they die – and at the same time affirming that Christ’s death is for everyone. Still, though, I can’t shake loose from texts that speak of or imply that not all will be saved in the end or from the question of whether God’s saving intention toward all and Christ’s death for all necessarily mean that every person will be saved in the end.

    Thanks for a deep and challenging blog.

    • admin October 14, 2011 at 12:31 am

      Thanks for the comments, Mary. Could you please expound on what you wrote – “Christ, as the agent of God in bringing about the final triumph of God’s reign, is not included in the creation.”

      • Mary Vanderplas October 14, 2011 at 9:28 pm

        I was referring to the fact that at his resurrection Jesus Christ was exalted, revealed as Lord over the powers in the created order, the representative of God’s cosmic rule. Thus, he is not a part of creation, but is the ruler over it. I was not referring to the fact that he is the one through whom all things came into being, the one to whom nothing is equal or superior, though that the New Testament teaches this also is not to be disputed. The 1 Corinthians 15 text emphasizes Christ’s role as the agent of God in bringing about the ultimate victory of God’s rule, the redemption of all creation from bondage to evil.

        After reading again the 1 Corinthians 15 text, I think that Paul is saying in verse 25 that Christ must reign until God has put all his enemies under Christ’s feet – i.e., that God is the intended subject of the second clause – and that the subject of the first part of verse 27 is likewise to be understood as being God. (This is supported by the fact that verse 25 echoes Psalm 110:1, which Paul takes as a reference to the Messiah and a prediction of his ultimate victory.) By this interpretation, the latter part of verse 27 has the purpose of clarifying that God is not included in what is subjected to Christ. Why Paul should have to clarify what seems obvious is uncertain. (Was there a heresy circulating that the exalted Christ usurped God’s place? It’s anyone’s guess.) At any rate, the emphasis in these verses is on Christ’s role as the agent of God accomplishing the final triumph of his rule – and testifying to the hope of “in Christ all” being saved.

        • admin October 14, 2011 at 10:51 pm

          Thanks! I understand and agree with what you are saying here. Makes perfect sense.

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 2:04 am

    For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment

    The Lord knoweth how to … reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

    2 Peter 2: 4 & 9

    Can God reconcile to Himself sinful angels, especially since Christ did not bare angelic sins in His own body on the tree? and wouldn’t that Kinsman body also need to be not only human for us but also angelic for them? Yet Scripture says clearly: verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2: 16

    It looks to me that since that body could only be one KIND at a time and Christ could only die for sins ONCE, that God made a choice to save only men and chose not to save angels.

    I don’t see how it is possible for the Lake of Fire to be remedial for evil angels. It surely looks to me that “punished” is the proper word to use in verse nine to express the punitive and eternal qualities of that judgment. Do you see that “the unjust” in this context not only includes angels but also men having the same reward? We are still on the subject: Can’t Erase Hell.

    What did I miss, Alice, on reconciling angels? Isn’t it Amazing Hope? Without a kinsman redeemer? How’s it possible to serve justice?

    How, Alice, how?

    • admin October 14, 2011 at 8:45 am

      We aren’t given in depth answers as to “how”, just general stuff like “even in him”, giving Jesus the credit/responsibility for making it happen. How am I supposed to know when the Bible is nearly silent to your questions? God hasn’t given me special revelation about life after death, other than His absolute sovereignty over His creation which He has purposed to reconcile to Himself before He even began creating it. Here’s what I know: The elect will judge the angels (1Co 6:3), that all the angels will bow to Jesus (Php 2:10), that peace and reconciliation of angels is made through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20), and this happens “in the dispensation of the fulness of times”. The Kinsman body apparently does bear the sin of angels, or else Col 1:20 is not accurate.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm

        else your idea of the reconciliation fallen angels is false teaching and you are judged condemned and headed for everlasting fire, the Lake of Fire.

        You haven’t yet put it together correctly because you are fighting the obvious.

        Death converts everybody, everybody confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, but that doesn’t mean they are saved and reconciled to God. It just means they no longer argue against that eternal fact they had so long unreasonably denied because now in death it is reasonable to accept it and they cannot escape the knowledge of His Lordship because of their current experience in hells fire.

        Colossians 1: 20 applied to the reconciliation of angels does NOT mean redemption of fallen angels. As I previously wrote that when you reconcile your checking account, you insure everything is accounted paid or outstanding: everything* is in its place. So also God eternally reconciles fallen angels to the Lake of Fire where He puts all His trash, even human unbelievers. Fallen angels and fallen humans are reconciled to the eternal Lake of Fire.

        Hebrews 2: 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

        See, the body He took, He took to deliberately destroy fallen angels, not to redeem them. Look, death goes into the Lake of Fire and so does the devil and all his fallen angels and also the incidental majority of spiritually dead unbelieving humanity; and for what purpose: destruction, not redemption.

        Christ deliberately avoided being a kinsman redeemer of fallen angels so that God could in perfect JUSTICE destroy them in eternal fire according to His Own words in Matthew 25: 49 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

        *Remember how I ridiculed your powers not people statement? How does God reconcile death? He put all the human spiritually dead in the eternal Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. He put death in its proper place eternally segregated from all living. Tht’s how He destroys death for the sake of the living; and remember God is the God of the living not the dead.

        The wheat and tares grow together until the end when God SEPARATES them eternally. God’s program is segregation: God is a segregationist. God saves and reconciles ONLY wheat. God’s tares He burns, not reconciles !!! That’s the purpose of the Lake of Fire: a SEPARATE place.

        There is NO kinsman redeemer for fallen angels. Fallen angels are NOT redeemable. There are NO righteous grounds upon which to redeem them. It is impossible for God to be just and redeem fallen angels. Christ did NOT bare the sins of fallen angels nor was He related to fallen angels. Fallen angels are confirmed in their fallen state without remedy and will perish in the Lake of Fire. There is NO way around it. God made No provision for saving them, but He did make a provision for their eternal destruction: the Lake of Fire.

        I call you to consider these facts, believe them, and ask God to save you.

      • Mary Vanderplas October 16, 2011 at 7:38 pm

        I like what you say here and agree that these texts, along with the Ephesians text which you mentioned previously, are pretty compelling. Also, 1 Peter 3:22 seems to support the view that even the fallen powers will be redeemed in the end.

        • Lanny A. Eichert October 16, 2011 at 11:42 pm

          1 Peter 3: 22 Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

          The above is a statement of the present position of Christ since His ascension. He is in heaven; angels, authorities, and powers are subject to Him right now as they have been since His ascension. That is the status of His present situation. There is NO eschatological statement here made. The verb “made subject” is 2nd Aorist tense completed action seen as accomplished in a point moment of time. That point moment was the conclusion of His ascension at which He took His place at the right hand of God. There is NO eschatological statement made in these words of a future redemptive work of Christ for angels. None that I can see at least or even imagine.

          Mary, redeemed by WHAT? What will be the redemption price? What debt do they owe and to whom do they owe it? Who will be able and willing to pay the price? The incarnated Christ died for the seed of Abraham, but angels are not Abraham’s seed. Angels are NOT carnate. How will Christ be made like unto angels and then what condemnation will He suffer to redeem them?

          • Mary Vanderplas October 17, 2011 at 9:20 pm

            I agree that the text in 1 Peter 3 testifies to the present Lordship of Christ, but in my view this doesn’t exclude the future aspect. Indeed, the Lordship of Christ over creation, revealed in his resurrection and ascension, will be fully realized only when he comes again. Thus, I think it is at least possible that the text is an assertion of the final redemption of the fallen powers.

            Colossians 1:20 and other clearly universalist texts simply state that the reconciling work of Jesus Christ in his life, death, and resurrection extends to the whole cosmos. They don’t address the questions you ask regarding the redemption of angels. The fact that we aren’t told how it can be that angels are redeemed doesn’t in itself mean that they can’t be.

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 11:43 pm

            I agree that the text testifies to the present, but in my view this doesn’t exclude the future.

            Mary, you were never one to allow the text to limit you, so you’ll see an assertion even when it just plainly isn’t there.

            I write, “My automobile was green.” You respond, “That doesn’t exclude it from being red at some point in the future.” It doesn’t matter if all the dialogue before and after my statement regards the past, you still believe my automobile will be red in the future. The reason why is because the color of rust is red, so you could be very correct. Was the purpose of my statement really to inform you that my autmobile will some day be red or was it to tell you that it was green in the past.

            Did Peter and God purpose to communicate “an assertion of the final redemption of the fallen powers” or just to make a statement of historical fact? Why use “made subject” rather than “reconciled” since there is a difference between the two? Can’t enemies be subjugated without being reconciled? Why even consider enemies here, since two thirds of angels and authorities and powers are obedient to God in the first place. It is just that the Son returns to His place of original Lordship where these were originall subject to Him.

            Alice, are you listening here too? Two thirds of angels and authorities and powers are obedient to God in the first place, so how can God reconcile them as a class of creation when they do NOT even need reconciling?

            • admin October 18, 2011 at 9:53 am

              The word “reconcile” has, inherent in its meaning, the idea that something has gone wrong with the thing or person or idea to which it applies. It is “re” (again) and “conciliate” (unite, bring together). In order to unite, there must be two things, people, or ideas to bring together. In all things reconciled, the redemptive work applies to that those things, people, or ideas that went wrong in the first place being brought together with those things, people, or ideas that never went wrong. The redemptive work in “reconcile” is defined by the word “reconcile”.

          • Mary Vanderplas October 18, 2011 at 5:51 am

            This picture of Christ reigning as Lord with all of the powers in subjection to him may well, in my view, have been intended to point to the future fate of these powers for the reason I stated: namely, that the Lordship of Christ will not be fully realized until the last day. I can’t say unequivocally that the writer was here talking only about something in the past and present. In other places in the New Testament, the writers use past and present tense verb forms to refer to things yet in the future. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 15:26, Paul says that “death is brought to naught.” He uses the present tense, even though, clearly, what he is talking about – the defeat of death – lies in the future.

            Regarding whether enemies can be subjugated without being reconciled, this isn’t what Paul envisions in Colossians 1 and elsewhere. What he envisions is all things – the totality of the creation – being reconciled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are – at least in Paul’s thinking – apparently only two options when it comes to the fate of the powers: reconciliation/submission or destruction.

  • admin October 14, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Dragging them into a human court would be pointless. They will have their day in “court”, and answer to God for what they have done. God knows the difference between ignorance and malicious intent. God knows their upbringing, fears, and motivations. He will judge them perfectly.

    • Sisterlisa October 17, 2011 at 11:56 pm

      And our human court systems are man made. Why do we think God’s court room is anything like ours? Mankind’s sense of ‘justice’ is totally twisted. According to some groups, justice would be to castrate some, death penalty for others, and exile others to an island to kill each other off.

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 14, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Since God did NOT redeem fallen angels, He CANNOT reconcile fallen angels either.

    Devour Hebrews chapter two: STUDY IT

    • admin October 15, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      I looked into Hebrews 2 and found two references which SEEM to support your position, but after I looked them up in the Greek, I see that it teaches that the oikoumenē (inhabited earth) to come will not be subjected to angels, and that Jesus epilambanomai (take in addition) a human nature (Abraham’s seed), not an angelic nature. There are two choices, either I’m right and there is no conflict in scripture, or you are right and you have to explain why there are several scriptures that indicate otherwise. And I’m not talking about bank account analogies. Why does it specify things in heaven if angels are not reconciled? Don’t say Lake of Fire, either because it still doesn’t explain the contradiction. If they spend eternity in the LoF, then they are not reconciled, which renders INACCURATE several scriptures that specifically say everything reconciled including things in heaven. So either the LoF is not eternal and there is not conflict or problem with inaccurate scripture, or the LoF is eternal and these other scriptures contradict. How do you resolve the conflict? I see that of Col1:20 you talked about your bank account. So I weigh it out. On the one hand, Lanny’s idea about a bank account, on the other hand, Jesus making peace with all things (heaven and earth both). It’s not a hard decision to make. If you want to convince me that Col. 1:20 is WRONG, as well as similar scriptures, you are going to have to formulate a better argument. As it is, your argument requires my faith in Lanny, not God.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

        Hebrews 2

        Verse 17 to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, that’s laos, not angels. Verse 16 For verily he took NOT on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham refutes the redeeming of angels. There is NO LEGAL BASIS upon which to reconcile angels. Verses 9 – 14 speaks of the relationship of Christ to humanity, NOT angels, in the reconciling man to God.

        That, in itself, should be a HUGE problem for you and your desire to reconcile the fallen angels. A HUGE, HUGE PROBLEM. Actually it is insurmountable.

        Now remember even heaven is a created place with furnishings and creatures; and Satan and his angels by their presence defiled all of it as they have everything, whether in heaven or in earth. Consequently the cleasing of heaven and earth results in the reconciliation of Colossians 1: 20 while excluding Satan and the fallen angels. They are excluded because they have no part “in Christ” now or ever.

        The fallen angels were simply prepared a place: the Lake of Fire, before Adam sinned. Have you ever noticed that the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil never stand in judgment before the Great White Throne, but are cast directly into the Lake of Fire (19: 20 & 20: 10 of the Revelation)? There’s NO judgment for fallen angels, so there CANNOT be redemption and reconciliation for them either. Alice, just in case judgment is a textual problem for you, remember the word is also translated damnation, condemnation, destruction, and these two verses show immediate condemnation justifying the translators elsewhere.

        Matthew 18: 10 That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. The unique thing about angels is that they are always in the presence of God, so the fallen angels deliberately transgressed in the face of God making standing in judgment unnecessary and condemnation could be immediately applied, though God seems to have postponed it for the majority, He may apply it any time He pleases, and He is so committed by justice. You see the checking account “reconciliation” does apply regarding having everything in its place, but really, fallen angels are excluded from Colossians 1: 20 but are currently on hold for immediate damnation in the Lake of Fire, the place prepared for them, Matthew 25: 41. They were not prepared a place of reconciliation as were God’s saints. Instead they were prepared a place of condemnation.

        Thank you for verse 5 observation as a supporting text.

        Use your head, Alice, think it through. The point is, don’t read INTO a text what isn’t there. I also count on you to not loose in your head what I have previously argued.

        • admin October 16, 2011 at 11:28 pm

          Verse 17 laos – yes. Here it does not say “things in heaven” but it still says “things in heaven” elsewhere.

          Verse 16 not the nature of angels – yes, that’s right, Jesus did not come to earth as an angel. Tell me where it specifies that Jesus must die in the form of an angel in order to redeem things in heaven? I don’t remember ever reading that.

          Verse 9-14 Yes, you are correct. This passage of scripture addresses the redemption of mankind. If I were to show you a passage of scripture which speaks of the redemption of an individual or a group, does that mean that nobody but that specific person or group will be redeemed? Of course not. Paul can explain how redemption impacts “things on earth”, and there’s no reason to assume that the other scriptures which are more inclusive, namely “things in heaven”. One doesn’t negate the other.

          There is no HUGE PROBLEM if you read the Greek. In the English translations, yes, there’s a huge problem, but not in the Greek. Lanny, I don’t trust translators. I look it up to see for myself what it means. There is no problem, and surely not an insurmountable problem. Not at all.

          Regarding “no judgment” of angelic beings – THE ELECT WILL JUDGE THEM. The scriptures explicitly state this, and I already quoted it to you. How do you explain that in light of your idea that they are not judged, therefore not redeemable? How do you reconcile this with your idea that “no judgment is necessary”? Where in scriptures does it say these ideas you are explaining to me? I don’t remember ever reading that.

          Verse 5 supporting text – I wish I could say you’re welcome, but not that I said it “seems to support” (English translations) but actually DOES NOT SUPPORT (Greek).

          I’m not reading into anything. My claims are right there in the words “things in heaven”. If you are correct, then “things in heaven” are not reconciled, they are thrown into the Lake of Fire “forever” (aion/aionios).

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 1:10 am

            Apparently, you don’t understand Biblical redemption. Besides the Mosaic Laws given on the subject, we have a thorough example in the book of Ruth.

            Also you must not even understand substitutionary atonement, reconciliation. Exodus 12 through Leviticus 5

            Why did God become a man? To, as a substitute for man, die a man’s death in all the fullness of both the physical and spiritual deaths God determined as the penalty of man’s disobedience. Plus, as a substitute, to live a perfect human life to be our perfect righteousness.

            What did God determine as the penalty of angel’s disobedience? Matthew 25: 41. How will God substitute Himself for angels?

            How many years of Koine Greek studies have you had? How much is necessary to evaluate translations? Mary has already written many times that you are much too much wooden in your Greek applications of definitions and I agree. Your appeal to a literal Greek translation fails for as many times as you have cried “wolf.” It is as “old” as your denounciation of Christian tradition.

            I HAD answerED the judging of angels, meaning human messengers, typically church pastors and teachers. Even John the Baptizer was called an angel/messenger. The angels of the seven churches in the Revelation chapters two and three are human messengers: pastor/teachers. How many references are there to men judging angels other than 1 Corinthians 6: 3???

            “a passage of scripture which speaks of the redemption of an individual or a group, does that mean that nobody but that specific person or group will be redeemed” The answer is yes, otherwise the sky is the limit as to where you may take your thoughts. Try Aaron’s rod that budded. Why is there only one name under heaven whereby we must be saved? That was a very foolish question and unexpected from you. If you really believe that is a proper way to go, you build sand castles and my words are useless. You can expand anything you please and limit anything you please by finding your own reasons. The Bible becomes only a springboard. Now there is solid proof of an unregenerate heart, a daughter of Satan destined to burn in the Lake of Fire.

            The bottom line it being LIMITED to words of the Holy Scriptures, not reading into something what is not there. Assume too much (going beyond what God dictates) and you burn.

            • admin October 17, 2011 at 10:03 am

              Are you saying that the elect will judge the elect?

            • admin October 17, 2011 at 10:21 am

              I said: a passage of scripture which speaks of the redemption of an individual or a group, does that mean that nobody but that specific person or group will be redeemed?
              You answered: Yes, otherwise the sky is the limit as to where you may take your thoughts.

              Here is an example of what I said: In Acts 4, Peter and John speak to the “Rulers and elders of the people” concerning salvation. Does this mean that no one else in the world besides the rulers and elders of the people who where there that day can be reconciled to God? Of course not. That’s ridiculous and presumptuous. Especially since there are other scriptures which indicate otherwise. That’s exactly what you are doing with Hebrews 2, a chapter which addresses the “things on earth”. This does not mean that the “things in heaven” are now excluded, especially since there are other scriptures which indicate otherwise. You are declaring an idea that is only supported by assumptions. Yes, it is true, Jesus came as a man. Yes it is true, the kinsman redeemer, I have studied this concept and know what you are talking about. You are right about His substitution. But no where in the scriptures is there a detailed explanation regarding how “things in heaven” are reconciled to God other than through the death of Christ. Just because we don’t have information to explain precisely how it works, this doesn’t mean we can throw away what we do know in favor of assumptions.

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 5:15 pm

            throw away what we do know in favor of assumptions

            What DO we KNOW about angels? Never in Scripture are they given an invitation to “get right” with God in any form. That we do know. Never does God give them a promise to “right” them. That we do know. While Jesus walked the earth, did those evil spirits that spoke to Jesus ever ask to be saved, or did Jesus ever propose to them an offer of salvation in any way? We do know the answer to both questions is no. When Jesus was tempted of the devil in Matthew 4 He answered with three Scriptural instructions to men, but never showed the slightest CARE for the spiritual condition of the devil. That we do know. In Matthew 25: 41 Jesus tells us what HAS BEEN PREPARED for them. That which was prepared for them is everlasting fire. The record says God casts the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil immediately in the Lake of Fire without going to judgment first. We also know the Lake of Fire is populated and without remedy at the end of the Revelation. That is God’s revealed plan. That we do know.

            Colossians 1: 20 must be consistent with that we do know.

            • admin October 18, 2011 at 10:18 am

              How can you say, never does God give a promise to right them when scriptures say “And He is the Head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”?

              It is not everlasting fire, it is aionios fire. The Lake of Fire populated and without remedy at the end of Revelation – is that your answer for everything? You assume the chronology, without taking into account other scriptures which describe more completely the “end”, as if Revelation, a book full of imagery and apocalyptic language which can be interpreted in SO MANY ways is the Rosetta Stone to the whole Bible.

              In the example you give, we learn a little bit about the fallen angels, that is, to be in Jesus’ presence is torment to them. They ask Jesus if He is coming to torment them before the appointed time. They are referring to a time when they have been appointed to be in His presence, in which His presence seems like a disease or harsh treatment to them. It is very reminiscent of “judgment”, in my opinion.

              You say Col. 1:20 must be consistent with what YOU know (not we, because I am have no agreement you in this), yet IT ISN’T. Tell me what “things in heaven” are reconciled to God, if not angels? Col. 1:20 is your wandering planet, Lanny. There is a reason that it doesn’t jive with your theology. So defend your position and explain what “things in heaven”? What does it mean to you?

  • Mary Vanderplas October 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    I think that what Paul is saying in the 1 Corinthians 15 text is that Christ will finally redeem all creation from the powers of evil. The whole cosmos, the whole created world, will be restored, gloriously liberated from the bondage of evil. All powers and people will submit to the sovereign rule of God. God will “be all in all.” Regarding the destiny of the fallen powers, nothing definitive is said, in my view, beyond that they will be defeated, that they will no longer be a threat to God’s rule. What exactly that means I don’t think we can know. More importantly, though, I don’t see the biblical witness as saying that Christ will come wielding the power of death and destruction, but rather the power of life, the power to make all things new.

    • admin October 16, 2011 at 11:32 pm

      “…I don’t see the biblical witness as saying that Christ will come wielding the power of death and destruction, but rather the power of life…” this is awesome. Love it!

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Purpose, Alice, is what we must determine. What was the purpose of the Incarnation of Christ, was it to save men or angels? What purpose does Hebrews 2: 9 – 18, especially 17 tell us? PEOPLE Do you, Alice, see the purpose clause in that verse? to make reconciliation for the sins of the people

    Verse 16 not for truly (of) angels he helped

    God’s purpose of the incarnation was for the people not angels. His BLOOD was not for angels: they have NO blood. His blood was a substitute for man’s blood. Colossians 1: 20 absolutely cannot work for angels.

    • admin October 17, 2011 at 10:01 am

      That is an inaccurate translation of 16.

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 2:23 am

    Purpose, Alice, is what we must determine. What was the purpose of the Incarnation of Christ, was it to save men or angels? What purpose does Hebrews 2: 9 – 18, especially 17 tell us? PEOPLE Do you, Alice, see the purpose clause in that verse? to make reconciliation for the sins of the people

    Verse 16 not for truly (of) angels he helped

    God’s purpose of the incarnation was for the people not angels. His BLOOD was not for angels: they have NO blood. His blood was a substitute for man’s blood. Colossians 1: 20 absolutely cannot work for angels.

    • Mary Vanderplas October 17, 2011 at 9:24 pm

      The text from Hebrews 2 underscores the complete solidarity between Jesus, the One who is superior to the angels, and humanity. It answers the question, “Why did the Son of God take on mortal flesh and even suffer and die a cruel death at the hands of those opposed to God’s purposes?” The answer is that in doing this, in identifying with us completely, he was able to help and save us. What the author is saying here, I think, is: “It’s clear from what he did and what he endured that the reason he came was for us, not for angels.” I don’t think that the point is that the rest of creation is not included in God’s plan, but simply that Jesus took on the lowliness of our human nature for our sake, because of God’s great love for us and desire to save us. In other words, we were the focus of God’s love in his coming in Jesus to be one with us.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 18, 2011 at 1:22 am

        “I don’t think that the point is that the rest of creation is not included in God’s plan.”

        As I stated above, you were never one to allow the text to limit you, not even to the point that the human writer and God purposed to make.

        Both the human writer and God went out of their way to state “not of angels” which they could have very well omitted without harming the human nature of the incarnation. What, then, is the purpose of those words? Answer: denial of angelic redemption and reconciliation.

        Mary, the rest of creation is NOT here denied a part in God’s plan, just fallen angels are here denied redemption and reconciliation. Now if “the seed of Abraham” is seen here as only believing humanity, people of faith, then here too, all unbelieving humanity are denied redemption and reconciliation, since Christ then did NOT bleed and die for them. The people of verse seventeen are limited to only the seed of Abraham as are everyone referenced in verses nine through chapter three verse one. There we have “Limited Atonement” and the denial of universal salvation. You see, He did NOT say Christ took upon Himself the seed of Adam as nearly 1 Corinthians 15: 45 would allow, but rather He said Abraham. WHY, why that choice? You see, it doesn’t deny Adam salvation if Adam would only be a person of faith, but it does deny Esau who in tears couldn’t repent.

        Mary, since you know He came in your own words “not for angels,” why don’t you leave it there? Why do you contradict yourself by insisting He did come somehow for angels though you don’t know how. If the “focus” was on us then you mean His efforts were out of focus for the angels? Out of focus means without intent or accidental.

        Stop at the text and go no further, Mary, or you demonstrate the foolishness of fools who perish in the Lake of Fire, and that you have already done.

        • Mary Vanderplas October 18, 2011 at 7:04 am

          It isn’t clear to me that “the purpose of those words [is] the denial of angelic redemption and reconciliation.” The author has taken pains to emphasize that the length of Jesus’ journey – from the highest heavens, a position far superior to the angels, to becoming one of us for a time, lower than the angels. He has emphasized, too, that the Son, not the angels, was the means of redemption. It seems likely to me that what he is saying here is simply that the reason he went to such lengths was not for the angels but for us, to save us and to help us in our misery. It isn’t just salvation that he has in view here, either, I don’t think. It’s all the ways Jesus helps us in our struggles – struggles about which the angels, presumably, know nothing. If it were crystal clear to me that the purpose of “not of angels” is to exclude angels from God’s redemptive plan, I would “leave it there.” But alas, it isn’t clear to me that this is what the writer of Hebrews intended.

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 17, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    in response to admin says:

    October 17, 2011 at 10:21 am and October 17, 2011 at 10:03 am and October 17, 2011 at 10:01 am

    But no where in the scriptures is there a detailed explanation regarding how “things in heaven” are reconciled to God other than through the death of Christ.

    BLOOD, Alice, BLOOD. Colossians is LIMITED to blood. You have absolutely NO foundation for your view. Evil angels roam both heaven and earth and all Scripture speaks only of their damnation and none of Scripture speaks specifically of their redemption and reconciliation. Only by unsupported ASSUMPTION can you make your point by insisting all things in heaven and earth includes angels. You had just finished addressing whether all means all in all cases and I waited for your negative conclusion. Now in practice you write in a positive persuasion that all is always all.

    All certainly means all that BLOOD satisfies the righteous judgment of God. All certainly means all saints whether physically dead or alive and here the assumption can supportedly mean all saints regardless of where they are, which also means saints are immediately in heaven upon their physical death and those who died before His crucifixion, now in heaven, are also reconciled by that same blood at the moment it was provided. All does NOT mean what is not satisfied by that BLOOD. All in this Scripture is LIMITED to only what is specified by God as satisfied by His BLOOD. You do not have “a detailed explanation” of angels’ sins satisfied by His blood and you therefore cannot extend that satisfaction to bloodless angels without it being merely your opinion without Biblical foundation. The Biblical foundation ONLY states it is men’s sins that are satisfied by that Blood: angels’ sins are omitted.

    God OMITTED to redeem, reconcile, and save fallen angels. He sovereignty has the right to do that. I offered that since they before God’s face openly rebelled, God can righteously cast them into the Lake of Fire without further judgment since that is exactly what is observed of the Beast, False Prophet, and Satan; yet you rejected that sovereign act of God as typical.

    Why is “not for truly (of) angels he helped” an inaccurate literal word for word translation of the first words of Hebrews 2: 17? Why didn’t you offer your translation?

    How many 1 Corinthians 6: 3 cross references are there for saints judging angels? Isn’t this the only such statement and we are left without enough other information to expound the text with any surety?

    • admin October 18, 2011 at 10:23 am

      I did answer “helped” – read my comments or look it up for yourself. The context, talking about what kind of form Jesus took, explains that our English “helped” is the wrong choice here, and it ought to be “take on” as in taking on a human form.

      Do you deny 1 Cor. 6:3? If so, on what basis do you deny it? I’m sure it has something to do with apocalyptic imagery and chronology in Revelation, your answer for everything.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 18, 2011 at 9:36 pm

        in response to admin says: October 18, 2011 at 10:18 am & October 18, 2011 at 10:23 am & October 18, 2011 at 9:53 am

        Luke 4: 34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. Also Matthew 8: 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

        Destroy and torment. & We know You, but want NOTHING to do with You. & Before the TIME.

        into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels Matthew 25: 41 Revelation 19: 20; & 20: 10

        You STILL read redemption in these words because you WANT a remedial Lake of Fire. What do THEY expect??? Any expectation of the remedial outcome of it?

        They know the Holy Scriptures better than we do and they believe them better than we do, so they can teach us a few things. James 2: 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. What are they teaching us in those Gospel statements?

        What do THEY expect, Alice, seeing they have no hope, because they KNOW redemption has NOT been MADE for them? If anybody should know, certainly they should for as long as they have lived, seen, and experienced God. Are they expecting reconciliation through repentance or are they expecting irreversible destruction? Do they have your Amazing Hope that God wins, meaning He will reconcile everything above and below? Do they have the JOY of salvation? Do they have the expectation and joy of Hebrews 12: 11? Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. If they would anticipate the grief of chastening, why will they not expect the blessed fruit of it? What is the obvious answer? ANSWER: they cannot (not able) because they are appointed to eternal destruction, not ever designed to be remedial. God did NOT ever intend to reconcile them. Get yourself another meaning for Colossians 1: 20 and the rest of those Scriptures which in themselves do not specify the fallen angels nor unbelieving men. Neither can those Scriptures be construed as invitations to angels to be saved: God makes it so very clear to men that He’d surely make it as clear to angels if He were offering it.

        Alice, you miss the POINT on Hebrews 2: 16 when you argue over help or take on. The importance is “not for truly (of) angels” Which negates redemption of angels. They surely appear to know this which you don’t want to know.

        I don’t dismiss 1 Corinthians 6: 3 by just holding it in reservation keeping it as a statement of God that has, for us so far removed from that contemporary Corinthian church culture, no assurance of exactly what angels means, human messengers or angelic messengers. Even at that Jesus is the Judge of all, so how do saints get a slice of that authority? It looks more like the ministry of resurrected and raptured saints reigning with Christ during the days of His Millennium earthly rule following His Second Coming; and therefore, angels are human ministers and messengers rather than incorporeal heavenly spiritual creatures. That fits “this life” in the verses as contrasted to that time of judgment being in another life, the Millennium, another “age” for your benefit, Alice. This life is the current age; the Tribulation is the next age; and then the Millennium is the one after that age. Regenerated Christians alive immediately before the Tribulation exit earth in the Rapture and with those church saints that proceeded them return with them after their combined wedding “week” (occurring in heaven during the Tribulation on earth) seven years later with their Bridegroom Jesus Christ to reign with Him a thousand years, judging “angels” among other duties. That judging more likely appears to be performance related to the smooth operation of Christ’s Kingdom, in other words, judgment of stewardships resulting in promotions or demotions in the Kingdom structure. I think my idea is better than yours, but I am reduced to saying “I think,” the same words that irritate me when Mary so constantly uses them and your somewhat lesser use of that phrase. Yes, I have to admit on this one I cannot (am unable) to know surely I have the intended meaning of the statement without corroboration. You would do well to also recognize the idea is nowhere else supported in Scripture, aquestion I asked you already.

        You didn’t supply information on how much formal Koine Greek language studies you have had and how much you might think is necessary to evaluate translations of the Holy Bible.

        • admin October 19, 2011 at 3:51 pm

          I’ve had as much formal training as the fishermen Jesus hand picked. “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

          And I’m done beating this dead horse. At this point I would like to agree to disagree regarding redemption of “things in heaven” since it is obvious that you see things one way, and I see things another way, and that no matter how many time we ping-pong ideas, we are not going to agree. So, I’m done now.

          • Lanny A. Eichert October 19, 2011 at 7:11 pm

            Colossian 1: 20 reconcile is an Aorist Active Infinitive and as such means past completed action. Made peace is an Aorist Active Participle and as such also means past completed action. 1: 22 present is an Aorist Active Infinitive and as such also means past completed action. Completed action, Alice and Mary, no eschatology here. Purpose and/or result is what we have here in the Greek infinitives.

            Peace has been made, therefore reconciliation has been accomplished. The purpose and result of peace has been accomplished because peace has been made. The purpose and result of peace is reconciliation. Reconciliation of all things in heaven and earth is DONE, accomplished. That’s Colossians 1: 20

            Think about it.

  • Sisterlisa October 17, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Woot!! Another well said piece of beauty… all means all!

  • Lanny A. Eichert October 19, 2011 at 4:28 am

    in response to Mary Vanderplas says: October 18, 2011 at 5:51 am & October 18, 2011 at 7:04 am
    #1) only two options when it comes to the fate of the powers: reconciliation/submission or destruction (&) I can’t say past or present
    #2) the Son, not the angels, was the means of redemption (&) not for the angels but for us

    #1) Destruction is the correct expectation proven by fallen angelic voices, Christ’s voice, the conduct of God in the Revelation, and the nature of the destination (Lake of Fire). Don’t you believe death is not reconciled, but destroyed? Cast into the Lake of Fire, right? How do you get death there, except you put it there in the persons it describes? Fallen angels and fallen men. Death cannot exist without a person just as wisdom cannot exist without a person. Don’t we define death as “separation” from either the body or God? Well, who is separated? A person, whether a spirit or a soul, angelic or human. So it is with authorities and powers: persons they are, not naked forces. Think about it: can evil exist without a person; or good likewise? So how are the enemies of God that cannot be annihilated destroyed? Render them inoperative by permenant confinement in the eternal Lake of Fire separate from the “living souls and spirits” that are in fellowship with the God of life. Life and death must ALWAYS be separated, never reconciled.

    Mary, angels redeemed by WHAT? What will be the redemption price? What debt do they owe and to whom do they owe it? Who will be able and willing to pay the price? The incarnated Christ died for the seed of Abraham, but angels are not Abraham’s seed. Angels are NOT corporeal. How will Christ be made like unto angels and then what condemnation will He suffer to redeem them? (from October 16, 2011 at 11:42 pm) Neither you nor Alice will answer these questions because you say Scripture gives no answers. That is right. Then why are you ASSUMING they are redeemable if there’s NO WAY to get the job done? Again since God gave us a detailed explanation of our redemption flowing through the Holy Bible from Genesis through the Revelation and John 15: 15 is still in the Bible, don’t you think He would have given us that important information? “All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.” Whatever happened to this “all?” The Bible is a fairly large revelation; it is not a small volume, and God didn’t have room to expound the deliverance of angels? Pitiful God you must have to keep us in the dark and yet call us friends. “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things ….” Whatever happened to this “all things?” Are you listening, Alice?

    I pity you that you cannot see a past tense verb at your age, Mary, and know what it means in context and have no DEFINITE explanation for your “can’t say.” 1 Peter 3: 22 “made subject” is a Greek aorist passive participle always presenting action as completed. It is true the present tense Greek verb may represent the future with the certainty of the present, but NOT the aorist passive participle which ascribes a completed quality accomplished upon the noun. Angels and authorities and powers are the three nouns that are described as viewed already made subject to Him. Notice other translations how the past action is obvious: being maDe subject, having BEEN maDe subject, having BEEN subjectED, HAD BEEN subjectED.

    #2) Never did either the writer and God intend to address angels could be the means of the redemption of humanity. (&) I wish you’d just leave it at “not for the angels but for us.” The believers’ salvation includes the whole LIFE from conversion to heaven, Mary, I know THAT, but the incarnation was necessary for that substitutionary death which pays the penalty of our sins as verses 9 & 14 & 17 reason SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH was the reason for the class, the body, and the nature He chose to assume: one passionate purpose: reconciliation by death. There is more suffering in this section by means of death, His soul made an offering for sin, Isaiah 53: 10, than there is humiliation and abusive human suffering in His incarnation. Verse 10 “sons’ and verses 11 & 12 “brethern” and verse 13 given “children” necessitate the class, the body, and the nature He chose to assume for the purpose of the SUBSTITUTIONARY death that redeems, regenerates, and reconciles at the initial moment of faith never able to be undone.

    Since He did NOT substitute Himself for angels, redemption of angels is ruled OUT. Since the discussion is void of any application to angels, redemption of angels is ruled OUT. Since verses 2, 5, 7, 9, and 16 address angels and still there is no application to angels, redemption of angels is ruled OUT. You say that’s NOT the point??? FIVE times angels are mentioned without any application of redemption and you say there is no point made of their exclusion from redemption? Five opportunities to include them and not a peep of it. You say exclusion is not pointedly there?

    But you were never one limited by the text any way.

    • admin October 19, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      I assume they are redeemable because God says so. As to how God does it is beside the point. Did the walls of Jericho fall because the people marching around making a bunch of noise like fools knew how the plan would work? I believe God. I trust that He is able to do what He says He will do. Do you?

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 19, 2011 at 6:28 pm

        I trust that He is able to do

        That’s what I’ve been trying all along to show you: God is NOT ABLE to do what you believe. It is unjust, illegal. That is why His track record has been what it is from the fall of the angels to the Revelation. How God does it is NOT beside the point, because there is NO way He COULD do it. He spelled out our redemption, and if He was ABLE and WILLING to redeem fallen angels, He would have revealed it to us. That’s John 15: 15. God is NOT WILLING to do what He is NOT ABLE to do.

        Colossian 1: 20 reconcile is an Aorist Active Infinitive and as such means past completed action. Made peace is an Aorist Active Participle and as such also means past completed action. 1: 22 present is an Aorist Active Infinitive and as such also means past completed action. Completed action, Alice and Mary, no eschatology here. Purpose and/or result is what we have here in the Greek infinitives.

        Check it

    • Mary Vanderplas October 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm

      I agree that the fallen powers are embodied in people – and, I would add, in institutions. Whether or not they exist also as separate spirit-beings I don’t know. In any case, though, Paul says in Colossians 1:20 that the reconciling work of Christ embraces the whole cosmos. There is nothing of destruction here, not even a whiff of burning flesh or…umm…burning angelic spirits.

      I am not assuming anything. I am simply not using the Hebrews 2 text, for the reasons I stated previously, to rule out that angels can be redeemed. As I’ve said, the fact that we aren’t told how it can be that angels or other spirit-beings, if there are such, can be redeemed doesn’t in itself mean that they can’t be. Why should I think that God “would have given us that important information”? We aren’t promised to be given all knowledge about the things of God, especially things that do not pertain directly to us.

      Even if the verb in 1 Peter 3:22 can be only the completed past action of the powers having been made subject to Christ in his resurrection/ascension, does not the truth in this text guarantee that the One who was revealed as Lord of all has the fate of the powers in his hands? And is it not legitimate to say that, if the powers were subjected to him then and are in subjection to him now, they will be fully in subjection to him in the coming kingdom of God? For the New Testament writers, the resurrection was not an isolated event. It was a prelude to the end of history and the final victory of God. It seems to me, therefore, that any picture of the risen, reigning Christ has within it the hope of the final triumph of God, with all that this will entail. (The earlier reference to Christ’s “trip” to preach to the “spirits in prison” seems to suggest a proclamation of salvation to the fallen powers, which is suggestive of their final inclusion.)

      That’s all I have to say about this. I pity the person who seems not to be able to argue his point without belittling through the use of insulting, patronizing words those who don’t share his view. Your puerile behavior is alienating in the extreme.

      • Lanny A. Eichert October 19, 2011 at 7:50 pm

        Do you believe Jesus preached to people in hell? yes/no
        Lanny A. Eichert says:
        October 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
        No. He preached way back in Noah’s day by the Holy Spirit resident in living Noah to the disobedient human spirits resident in those living sinner men who mocked Noah. Christ’s Spirit preached through mortal Noah to the mortal men living in Noah’s neighborhood. God’s Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, through Peter reminds us those disobedient men are now dead and their spirits are now in hell prison. Have I made myself clear?

        Your “seems to suggest a proclamation of salvation” is pure imagination based on a wrong view of the text that is NOT elsewhere confirmed or supported.

        “knowledge about the things of God, especially things that do not pertain directly to us” Well what then is prophecy and why is it given to us? John 15: 15? Recognize a lame excuse for what it is. We have abundant information to reject it as unintended, impossible, and illegal for even God Who has already demonstratedly taken a hard and direct course of action to permenantly destroy fallen angels and fallen men in an eternal Lake of Fire without remedy.

  • Julie Ferwerda October 20, 2011 at 3:22 am

    Alice, you are such a like heart. I love reading your well thought and studied gems. Thanks for this amazing deduction (Sherlock :7 )!

  • […] Next blog – Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: “All = Some” […]

  • Hell in Revelation « www.whatgoddoes.com December 7, 2012 at 3:22 am

    […] God Swears, Then What About…, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: The Anathema of Scrutiny, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: All = Some, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Now or Never, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Sin Wins, Why Chan […]

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.