Regarding Rick Warren's Son

This is probably the best web page on the subject: Triablogue: Perseverance and suicide.

Notice that in the comments section someone mentions the Scripture that I would also mention in discussions where it is denied that suicide is an “unpardonable sin”: 1 John 3.15.  With that said, my thinking is that a person would have to work to prove that any Christian who has considered suicide was in fact regenerate when he died; any Christian who has died in this way would have done mental and logical gymnastics to work around the problem of ending his life without intentionally killing himself: something which can be done though presumably no one commits himself to such a project before he puts himself to death.

Follow-up on MLK and "The Optional Jesus"

Let’s go back to what Dr. King was saying, as quoted in 11/25/09 blog post. From Google Books and page 189 of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volumes 2-3:

    Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that Christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.

Actually, two things that are false are (a) the denial of the fact that guilt is transferable from one person to another; and (b) the denial of the fact that a person can on moral grounds be punished in the place of another.

Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: of course he does. And suppose that I were to stand up for someone else--in practically any case of a rule’s having been broken--and say “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” Regardless of whether the person who actually did the crime could or should be excused, am I not worthy of punishment if I willingly offer to be punished in someone’s stead? It seems to me that I am in fact worthy of punishment if that is what I insist on having.  (Notice, meanwhile, that this idea certainly is not far-gone if the scribes and Pharisees of Matthew 23.29-36 and Luke 11.45-51 are worthy of punishment in virtue of their claiming to be descendants of those who persecuted the prophets of old.) Therefore, if I offer to be punished instead then I am worthy of punishment.

Moreover, if I am worthy of punishment for a particular wrongdoing, then I also bear guilt of this particular act. Of course, the words “guilt” or “guilty” in this case would clearly carry a different meaning than it carries in the English colloquial phrase “guilty of sb,” which in turn means he did the crime, and in the phrase “feelings of guilt,” which simply speaks of feelings of culpability. So if I bring worthiness of punishment upon myself by my intercession for someone who actually did the crime, then I have brought guilt upon myself. For what else is guilt, according to the sense of the term that Dr. King uses above? Therefore, if guilt is not transferable from one person to another, we have seen at least that guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can become a property or quality held by another person.

Yet the guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can in fact virtually or exactly be transferred from one person to another. Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: yes. Now suppose that I were to stand up for someone else, saying, “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” If the divine punishment that I now bring upon myself were sufficient to demonstrate the degree to which God takes evil acts seriously or were sufficient to appease God’s wrath or anger, then what would be the point in punishing a second person? With that said, it is entirely conceivable that the punishment of one particular person could be effective such that punishment of a second party becomes unnecessary. And guess what: that is more or less what the Bible teaches us. For it informs us in no uncertain terms that the punishment of the transgressors was upon Christ (Isaiah 53) and that sinners who will believe in Christ are forgiven and excused such that their guilt becomes no more. Therefore, the guilt of one party ceases to exist while apparently one party freely brings guilt upon himself and is punished in order to spare the first party (Matthew 20.28; John 10.11-18).

Then again, perhaps Dr. King would object to all of this, saying, “Oh no, this won’t do at all. The person who actually sinned: he should be the one to be punished for the crime. All the people who have done me wrong in life: why should they be let off the hook while someone who did not commit their evil actions is punished for what they did?” The objection is that those who actually commit wrongdoings should be punished, not necessarily those who bear guilt of those actions. However, if one will stop to think about it then it becomes clear that not all those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. After all, even after God has forgiven any sinner for what that sinner has done the fact remains that this sinner has done wrong at some particular time in the past, an example being that Peter’s denial of Christ is a matter of public record. Peter and the other apostles of Christ did wrong, yet they do not deserve punishment, given that their sins were forgiven. Therefore, not all of those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. Therefore, we can say this of the individuals who personally sinned against Dr. King: what they sinned against was God’s property (Ps 24.1, Rom 9, Rom 11.36) and God will avenge himself as he will (Romans 12.19-20).

Here is a post on the issue of whether a person can lose their salvation. Or more specifically someone who has "prayed the prayer" when they were young.

Thus, my friends, it is important that we do not pronounce that someone is saved only because he or she has prayed the Sinner’s Prayer. That prayer doesn’t save; faith alone saves. And we need to hold on to our faith, until we die, no matter how difficult our lives get (and they will get difficult—but that’s for another time). Those who are truly saved will live like it.

Matthew 24:9-13: “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved.”

I think too many folks think, falsely, that because they have prayed the prayer (or come down the aisle, etc), that somehow negates everything they do that is contrary to God's commands. This is a tricky subject, sometimes. Partly because on this side of heaven, we still sin against God.

On the other hand, I think it is the difference between continual, repeated rebellion against God, and feeling bad or guilty when we don't measure up and turning to the cross of Christ for forgiveness. It is the difference between excusing your sin against God by saying you once prayed the prayer and realizing our sinfulness apart from Christ and nothing but the Gospel has saved me from my sin. (And continues to renew my life).

I don't think it is a safe place to be, thinking I am covered because of the "prayer" while I live like hell. That would be the height of presumption.

Distraction

There is a place in the Bronx where one will find the following:

One of the messages that is offered by the leadership at this place of worship or gathering is a non-starter, if in fact the leadership is interested in saving any sinners from destruction and divine wrath. At their website, one will find the following excerpt:

Welcome to St. Mary Star of the Sea Church

What holy thoughts spring to our minds in that blessed name.
O, Stella Maris, stay with us in all dangers of soul and body in life’s calm and heavy seas…

If Rome will insist on encouraging people to petition mediators or intercessors other than Christ to intercede to Heaven on their behalf, then in doing so it creates something which practically runs contrary to faith in God. This is because the human brain has only so much cognitive ability, has only so much of an attention span, and has only so many hours in a day to work with.

Again, there is only so much that the human brain can remain focused on at any particular moment. This is something I have learned in reflecting on my Campbellite years, because the leadership of at least one Campbellite congregation of mine placed such a high value on the act of baptism--you know, the focal point of the salvation of one’s soul in the Campbellite mind--that the continual act of proclaiming the necessity of faith and trust in Christ fell by the wayside. No one preached (in any noticable fashion) the message of trust in God as the occasion of remission of sins--just didn’t happen. That’s because when a person plays up one message he forgets another.

Think about the differences between political leftists and rightists in the U.S. For example, right-wing media tend to explain the 2008 U.S. economic downturn in terms of Clinton-era policies concerning housing and money-lending. On the other hand, left-wing and/or centrist media tend to mention “predatory lending” of financial institutions and the notion of Wall Street derivatives as constituting a house of cards bound to eventually fall apart. But neither side ever mentions the causes that the other side mentions. Most people from any given side probably would not want to address all the causes even if they were aware of them all--it would cede too much popularity capital to the ideology of the opposing side. Moreover, if one side of the aisle spends no time whatsoever speaking of issues X, Y and Z and you notice this, then you have to spend your time doing what the other side will not do: that leaves little or no time to ever address the issues that the other side does mention. So as a matter of sheer mechanics and practicality, it becomes difficult or impossible to juggle more than one message or idea.

Campbellites became aware of some of their particular shortcomings and tried to start emphasizing a message of faith, trust and reliance upon the God who justifies sinners: they did this around the year 2000 as more and more people started using the Internet and interaction between people of differing theologies became more thorough and commonplace. So their preachers or apologists began to play up the lost message,* and in doing so they tried to overcome the problem of time management that we mentioned earlier. However, this sort of thing likely does nothing to overcome the problem of cognitive ability. For if a person is convinced that even just after he comes to a point in life where he trusts God to save him from his sins he still won’t be saved from those sins until he is dunked (if all this is even possible), in some sense he is ultimately relying on the baptizer. Personally, I doubt that I trusted the Son of God before I made a confession concerning the same before a Campbellite congregation and was baptized minutes later--probably no trust in God until after I had fulfilled this one last requirement that I thought I had (i.e., baptism). So, if more people in the Churches of Christ are like this, then no one should be surprised to find they have more false converts among them than among heterodox Christian congregations.

Therefore, back to the initial comments on matters Roman Catholic. If you’re encouraging people to petition dead saints to petition God because you believe that these saints are holier than thou, isn’t there now less of an incentive toward longstanding and perfect personal obedience to God? And do the thoughts of those under Rome’s influnce--both the pious and the semi-pious, so to speak--truly remain focued on God in circumstances such as these?

Such is that which is on my mind right now....

_______

* I am being generous here. Know and remember that semantic variances of common theological terms sometimes come into play when dealing with heterodox groups and individuals.

Clarifying Calvinism-Part 2:Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel”

Here is the second part to the Clarifying Calvinism series by Phil Johnson from the Pyrpmaniacs blog. I'll be keeping my comments to a minimum since I think Johnson (and Spurgeon) does a good job of explaining.

If you missed the first one: Clarifying Calvinism-Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?

Part II: Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel”

There are, these days, quite a few self-styled Calvinists who disagree with my assessment of Arminianism and insist that Arminianism entails an absolute denial of certain fundamental gospel truths. Those wishing to make that argument will invariably quote a famous statement by Spurgeon, taken from the chapter in his autobiography titled “A Defence of Calvinism” in which Spurgeon said this:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

I absolutely agree with what Spurgeon says there, in the sense that he meant it. And the context of that statement explains clearly what he meant. He was pointing out that the principle at the heart of all gospel truth is the same principle that drives Calvinism: “Salvation is of the Lord.” Salvation is God’s work; it’s not something we do for ourselves. That’s the truth he was defending. [Part of this has been a tough thing to move away from since I've "grown up" with the alter call, 'make a decision for Christ', you have to meet God half way type of theology...I don't think those hold up nearly as much, Biblically, but I am still working through them]

Spurgeon was not saying that we ought to use the five points of Calvinism the way Campus crusade people use the “Four Spiritual Laws.” He wasn’t saying that all you ever talk about is the doctrines of election and reprobation you are faithfully preaching the gospel and the whole counsel of God. Unfortunately, I think that’s what a lot of careless Calvinists think Spurgeon meant when he said “Calvinism is the gospel.”

But if you read Spurgeon’s whole article on Calvinism, he makes very clear what he meant. In fact at the beginning of that very same paragraph—as his preface to remarking that “Calvinism is the gospel”—he wrote this:

“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.”

Did Spurgeon believe Arminianism was in error? Absolutely. So do I.

Did he believe it was damnable error? Absolutely not, and he made that clear, too.

At the peak of the Downgrade Controversy, some of Spurgeon’s critics accused him of being driven by a doctrinaire Calvinist agenda. It’s not really Modernism that Spurgeon hates, they said. It’s anything that departs from his old fashioned Calvinism. This whole controversy is a furtive campaign against Arminianism. That’s what really has Spurgeon bugged. He thinks modern Christians aren’t Calvinistic enough.

Spurgeon replied in The Sword and the Trowel with a paragraph that said this:

Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers.

In another place, he was even more explicit:

We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it.

So he had a bone to pick with people who once affirmed the doctrines of grace and had now abandoned Calvinism in favor of new ideas that smacked of Socinianism. But he regarded evangelical Arminians as his true brethren and fellow soldiers—as long as they affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith, the principle of sola fide, the absolute authority of Scripture, the penal aspect of Christ’s atonement, and other essential gospel truths.

Speaking of Arminians in particular, he said:

Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition: our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that “modern thought” which is its deadly enemy.

So Spurgeon did not regard Arminians as hell bound heretics. He regarded them as brethren. Did he think they were in error? Yes? Were they guilty of gross inconsistency in their own theology? He would have answered emphatically, yes. Was their main error significant? Spurgeon did not shrink from referring to it as “heresy”—meaning unorthodox doctrine, heterodoxy, serious error. But he was very careful to make clear that he did not regard Arminianism per se as damnable heresy or utter apostasy from essential Christianity. Virtually all mainstream Calvinists from the time of the Synod of Dort until now would agree with him on every count.

For example, Gordon Clark, one of the highest of high Calvinists, said this with regard to whether Arminians are authentic Christians or not:

An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation.”

Which is to say that Arminianism is inherently inconsistent. Arminians technically affirm the fundamental, essential truths of the gospel. Then they try to build a theology on top of that which is totally inconsistent with the solid foundation they have affirmed.

I agree with that assessment of Arminianism. It’s an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility—and the Arminian method of reconciling those two truths involves a view of human free will that is inherently inconsistent with certain gospel truths every Arminian actually affirms.

In some posts yet to come, I will explain further why I believe that is the case.

[So, it seems that it is not a good idea to label the Arminian outside the bounds of Christianity even while considering the theological positions they hold to be inconsistant, Biblically. What do you think?--D.]

Ethos, Logos, and Pathos

Yet another hat tip to Triablogue, as we all here remain busy: Triablogue: Heavenbound?

(Cf. 16 Lessons From the ‘Love Wins’ Debate « Miscellanies.; AOMIN: The Door Was Shut, Rob Bell)

Fireside chat: Salvation is to God, through God, and from God

Since we’ve seen a number of visitors from the Campbellite camp here, I thought it bore mentioning what the fallen human race must perpetually be reminded of, from day to day and from era to era. If you ever come to terms with the fact that you as a sinner are just that--a sinner--and have real contrition or grief about your offenses against God, then good. Moreover, if you repent of your wrongdoings, then this too is good, because you owe this to God.

Things are even better if you throw yourself at the mercy of the Divine Court, believing the Judge to be merciful upon those who believe what He has said and believe in Him. Things are better, because this is the equivalent of one’s believing in God and the one whom he sent, and it is written that those who believe in Jesus Christ are justified from those things from which one cannot be justified by the law: faith is the occasion of justification and those who believe are people whom God is pleased to forgive.

If you throw yourself at the mercy of the court because you know that your own deeds and efforts at doing good just aren’t cutting it (in terms of satisfying the righteous requirements of God’s law or at establishing your own righteousness), then why would you ever backpedal on this idea? If you think that a laundry list of acts of continual obedience is necessary to remain righteous or forgiven, then you’re already moving in the direction of the Judaizers of the days of the apostle Paul.

It is to be granted that obedience to God’s commandments itself can make one to be righteous, though this is slightly beside the point since (hopefully) all Christians know that no one is capable of establishing his own righteousness any more than the Hebrews of old were capable of such. It is also to be granted that vis-à-vis the likes of 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 and 1 John 3.4-6 there is a correspondence between acts of human obedience and divine salvation, regardless of whether one causes the other as opposed to merely correlating with it. However, if you conclude from such passages that one must obey, and obey again, and continue to obey God or else the promise of John 3.16 now has to be amended or supplied with an explanatory calque at the margin of the pages of one’s Bible, then you’ve given up far too early.

You should already know that you’ve given up too early, because the aforementioned conclusion is one thing that the Judaizers of Paul’s day believed and were condemned for: effectively that one must obey to remain righteous. Yet there are other indications that you fall too easily into the trap of taking your eyes off the prize and remaining distracted by various inner workings in the complexity of God’s choosing, saving, and preserving his people....

For the sake of argument, let it be that divine commandments C1, C2...Cn must be obeyed or else a Christian will somehow cease to be an object of divine mercy and will instead perish. Fine. But who makes sure that Christians obey these particular commandments? Now, notice that I haven’t asked who on this earth tries to encourage his fellow man to obey God and do right, but rather I asked who is it who actually ensures that Christians obey these particular commandments? Or do you not know that salvation--from start to finish--is not something accomplished merely by man’s efforts, but rather through the power and workings of Almighty God?

Or if you believe that one stands by faith and that without faith a person will be punished by God on the coming Day of punishment, then good. But is there not someone in heaven who is interested in preserving his people and making sure that they persevere until the end? Or do you instead trust yourself to make sure that you never stop believing in God and believing his word lest you perish?

The course of evolution among the Campbellite camp from its inception has been one of anti-intellectualism and hyper-simplicity to a reconstituted intellectualism which nearly parallels legalism. But now I urge those within (and without) the camp: do not merely pay lip service to the importance of faith, and do not place a misdirected emphasis on the very real importance of obdience to God’s commandments. The error of baptismal regeneration and baptismal justification is grevious enough and has done enough damage in the world already. Members of the “Churches of Christ” community and other groups need not compound their errors by means of semi-legalism.

Hell and Failures of Universalism & Reconciliationism

So, last time I was talking about hell, since people who disagree with Christian ethics and theology want to take issue with the idea of everlasting punishment. But, you have people within Christendom also, as it were, who want to take issue with Christian ethics and theology. We may as well take a look a look at more issues of Doomsday if we started off with the topic of whether everlasting punishment is just.

At the present moment it would be more natural to address the revisionist arguments which produce novel renditions of certain Hebrew and Greek words and attack the idea of everlasting punishment in this way. However, I do not want to delve into all the tedium and technical details right now, so I won’t. Instead, why not have a look at univeralism and reconciliationism, especially since this is the Internet and heterodox beliefs such as those thrive on the Internet where eccentrics and kooks have a voice?


Reconciliationism basically gives us a happy ending to world history. Regardless of whether people eventually will be punished for their wrongdoings, at the very end of the story they will be reconciled to God in good standing. To argue a case for this point of view, one could produce the biblical passages that one might first expect to find in such an argument: Romans 5.18, Romans 5.19, Romans 11.32, Romans 14.9.

Romans 5.18 itself reads as “Therefore as by the offence of [one judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.” This is the kind of verse that presents issues relevant to the would-be veracity of Arminianism and its offshoots. Indeed, if the phrase “all men” means all human beings simpliciter in verse 18a, then it should be that this phrase is used in the same way in verse 18b such that it states nothing less than that all human beings are or will be justified by God.

I do not know how or even if Arminians and post-Arminians can produce an orthodox and accurate rejoinder to the idea that Romans 5.18 supports universalism. (I suppose their only and quasi-responsible option is to argue a “weight of evidence” case by contrasting other Scriptures and then asserting that the phrase “all men” somehow undergoes a change of usage, denotation or meaning from the first part of Rom 5.18 to the second part.) On the other hand, a Calvinist or quasi-Calvinist like myself would already be hip to the reality that the phrase “all men” as used in the NT is not always used as it is in Modern English.

After all, a quick and honest look at Luke 6.26, 1 Corinthians 9.22, 1 Corinthians 10.33 or 1 John 1.7-9 shows that while naïve Arminian ideas of the connotation of “all” and “all men” are accurate, the naïve failure to recognize that neither the scope/purview nor reference of these phrases always correspond with the connotation must be acknowledged. In fact, we see in 1 Cor 9.22 that the phrase “all men” basically means all sorts of men of a particular set. (Paul clearly did not have Celts, Indians and North Americans in mind here.) By analogy, it was always possible and plausible that the phrase in question had this meaning in Romans 5.18--Christ is the savior of both Jews and Gentiles and is not the savior of only the special nation of Israel, a message which is repeated in the writings of the apostle Paul.

Now, a committed univeralist might take the foregoing comments as circumlocution, but facts are facts; and the fact is that one must be careful in his exegesis of Romans 5.18. The same is true of Romans 5.19, where Paul writes: “For as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.” The many who were made righteous? The many Muppets? The many holy angels? The many kinds of people in the world today? The grammar of the verse does not necessarily indicate what the answer to the question is.

It’s the same story with Romans 11.32, where Paul writes: “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” Might have mercy upon all what? All atoms? All things? All people around us? All kinds of people around us? Keep this verse in context (Romans 10 and 11) in order to discover the answer. Both Jews and Gentiles have been shut up in disobedience, and if we were to speak abstractly (i.e., with generalizations or reference to properties/qualities shared by individuals) of Jews and Gentiles as opposed to speaking of specific individuals--and this is what Paul seems to do so in his writing--then we could say that it is all sorts of men or people who have been shut up in disobedience.

Finally, in Romans 14.9 the apostle Paul writes: “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” You’ll get the idea that this verse argues for universalism only if you are the type who thinks that “to make Christ the Lord of your life” is to get saved and that recurrent acts of Christ’s becoming the Lord of someone’s life occur and save people from their sins. There are a number of things wrong with this modern idea, but in passing I will state just one problem: the Scriptures state that Christ has been made Lord of all things in the universe (Matthew 28:18, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 with the seeming exception of death; cf. others), while we know that some things in the universe are destroyed (e.g., condemned buildings) or will be destroyed (cf. 2 Peter 3), yet Christ is Lord even of these things. So the fact that Christ is Master or Lord of all people does not necessarily make one to be safe from destruction or divine wrath.

*********************

Oh, but the would-be proofs for reconciliationism do not stop there. Take a look at what the apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 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:

Some will look at Ephesians 1.10 and see nothing other than possible indications of reconciliationism. On the other hand, the translators of the NIV apparently see Paul as speaking of Christ’s being made the lord of all things in this verse; other translations allow for the plausibility that Paul is speaking of the so-called Rapture or something like it. Meanwhile, it bears noting that Colossians 1.19-21, a passage which is used to argue for reconciliationism, probably informs us of one thing that Paul does not have in mind in Ephesians 1.10; for the passages are analogous enough to warrant this assertion. In Colossians 1.19-21 the apostle Paul writes:

For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, 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. 21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

If one will use this passage in order to argue for reconciliationism, then this verse either proves too much or does not prove enough. Question: Are the elect, holy angels at opposition with God? No, they are not. Have they ever been at opposition with God? No, they have not. Are the holy angels some of all things? Yes, they are some of those things which are created, and so they are some of those objects which could be denoted by the phrase “all things.” So if the holy angels are some of all things, then how can these holy angels be reconciled to Christ, as a reconciliationist interpretation of this passage either intentionally or otherwise logically implies?

So it seems that ultimately either of the following must be admitted by reconciliationists. Either:

a) The phrase “all things” does not mean all things simpliciter in Colossians 1.20 (stemming either from limited purview or from hyperbole of some sort); or

b) The word “reconciled” as used in verse 20 is a word that can apply to reconciliation of a particular sort which does not pertain to one’s ceasing to lead a life of rebellion against God.

Regardless of whether the Colossian passages sheds any light on Ephesians 1.10, it certainly does not support reconciliationism in an obvious manner. Yet according to the similarity of the two passages, Ephesians 1.10 also does not support reconciliationism in any obvious fashion.

*********************

Finally, in Matthew 12.31-32 Christ says:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

So if He says that, then that means that forgiveness will possibly be given in the world to come, right? Not really. If one wants to try to draw conclusions about what propositions this passage supposedly unconventionally implicates, then it is enough for me to make this plausible statement: mention of the dichotomy of worlds was made in order to draw attention to how well righteous people will live in the world to come while sinners are subject to abject misery, misery which is only intensified by these sinners’ knowledge that happiness and life could have been theirs had they only done right, but now they’ve had their chance at happiness and have squandered it.

Besides, what divine forgiveness of sins will be made in the world to come if we read in Daniel 12.2 “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt”?