Does 2 Cor 5:19 Teach...?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by TCGreek, Sep 1, 2007.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Does 2 Cor 5:19 teach universalism, the belief that all who have ever lived or will ever live, without exception, will be reconciled to God?

    2. "Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation" (emphasis mine).
     
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    We know that the Bible does not teach universalism because only those that believe will be saved, so that leaves out a lot of people.

    If we go back to verse 17, it says "if" any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. This leaves out those who are not in Christ. It goes on to say that this is from God and we that are in Christ are reconciled and are to be ambassadors for Christ and spread the word that Christ has done the reconciling (again all from God). But, then there's that word again.."world" which means kosmos and could be in the sense of "whole/entire" where Paul refers to "them" (not counting their tresspasses against them)or a narrow sense of the "we" and "us" Paul is referring to.
     
  3. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    In our paper's "religion" section today, they had a universalist church composed of Christ deniers, atheists, buddhists, etc. That verse states "in Christ", which they deny the true deity of, so I don't think that verse would be used by them to support universalism.

    This wouldn't have been a cloaked attempt to trap us non-calvies, now, would it? :)
     
  4. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, Webdog! What can I say...? But to ask, How was God reconciling the world through Christ, not counting their trespasses against them?
     
  5. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are onto something here. Stay with it.
     
  6. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    By making Christ the Sacrificial Lamb in our place.
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul says that the reconciling was for the world, not counting their trespasses against them. Now, if "by making Christ the Sacrificial Lamb in our place," then how come universalism is not correct?
     
  8. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have to admit, it sure sounds like universalism, but I think it means the below:

    1Tim 2:
    [5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
    [6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

    I think this is what He is saying TC; the ransom was made for all, but we have to be reconciled as below.

    [18] And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
    [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
     
    #8 Brother Bob, Sep 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2007
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they still have to believe?
     
  10. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then we must agree that his shed-blood was potential in its efficacy and is therefore only efficacious when a person believes. Is this what you are saying?
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. If the ransom was made for "all," then all should be set free from the bondage of sin. But is this the case?

    2. When a ransom is paid, a release inevitably follows.
     
  12. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think so. I'm not sure what you mean by "potential". It sounds like you're saying Christ's blood has the potential to atone.
     
  13. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    The atonement was made to the Father. Jesus didn't just give some of His blood, He gave it all to the Father as an atonement for all, but in order for it to be complete, we must believe. Or, in order to have the blood applied to your soul, you must believe.

    The Father will not apply that blood, except we believe.
     
  14. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    It must be that his blood has the potential to atone since his atonement is only applied to a person when they believe. That is how I understood your previous statements. Maybe, I was wrong.
     
  15. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    But how do you square "but in order for it to be complete, we must believe" with Jesus' statement, "It is finished"?
     
  16. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    His part was finished. He said "touch me not, for I have not yet accended to the Father".
     
  17. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    If His part was finished, then why is our belief needed to complete His shed-blood, as you said above?
     
  18. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a good question. What is finished? The atonement? If all sin has been atoned for, why do we have to believe?

    LOL. TC, you and I were posting at the same time. I can't believe I asked exactly the same question!
     
  19. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I getting some signals, or just wishful thinking on my part? :laugh:
     
  20. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know what's goin' on! :laugh:

    I think you're messin' with my head!
     

Share This Page

Loading...