jt: I understand what you are trying
to communicate Bill but I have trouble reconciling it with the writings of Paul
because "cadaver" describes a dead physical body and "dead in trespasses and
sin" is describing a spiritual condition and being spiritually dead per se does
not preclude the ability to make the choice to receive life when presented with
the reality of the cross.
Um, Judy, why do you suppose Paul
makes such a point of pointing out that they were dead and that it was Christ at
the cross who made them alive, if as you say, dead doesn't really mean
dead; dead means alive enough to make the choice to live? I don't get
it.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:09
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Judgment
I have one or two questions
concerning this perceived "universally inclusive language" of
scripture.
1. Where does one find the word
"cadaver" in the scriptures to start with?
Hi Judy. "Cadaver" is a
metaphor, just like Paul's language of "being dead" is a metaphor
used to describe the inability of the saints at Colosse to have done
anything to effectuate their own salvation. As you know, a cadaver is a
dead person.
jt: I understand what you are
trying to communicate Bill but I have trouble reconciling it with the writings
of Paul because "cadaver" describes a dead physical body and "dead in
trespasses and sin" is describing a spiritual condition and being spiritually
dead per se does not preclude the ability to make the choice to receive life
when presented with the reality of the cross.
Paul says that the saints to whom
he wrote "were dead" but Christ made them "alive" and forgave them; he
also says that they were given this life and forgiveness at the cross
(2.13-14). Elsewhere he writes that Christ made peace "through the blood of
the cross" (1.20).
jt: Paul writes the same thing in
Ephesians 2:1-3 - and these scriptures need to be understood in the light of
other scripture.
Before answering the
questions below I would like to direct you back to the subject at hand. I was
very specific about what language I considered to be universally inclusive,
supplying the verses to which I spoke (Col 1.13-14, 16-17, 19-20; 2.9 and
13-15). Will you please go through these verses one by one and explain to me
why they are not universal in scope and intent?
jt: I had and have been through
them Bill, nothing is changed. The Bible is written to God's people and
every letter is addressed to saints, called out ones, etc. Also noone is
quicked aside from the indwelling Spirit who was not sent to the
world. I know this sounds exclusive but it is God's Word not mine and
His is the Spirit who inspired the human authors.
To adequetaly address your
questions below, it would be necessary for me to set the stage by first
establishing the vicarious humanity of Christ -- what that that means, and why
it is so important.
jt: I think we may have been over
this before but I would be interested in what you say
I have attempted to do this on
numerous occasions, each time to no avail: my impression is that you are just
not willing to go there (although Lance thinks you are unable). If you are
interested and willing to consider what I have to say, I will be glad to set
that context; from there we can begin to work through the effectual or
salvific aspects of atonement and the way in which we are to understand our
active responses to the gospel through such things as repentance,
baptism, and faith.
You can let me know.
By the way, I have already
addressed your third question. See below.
Have a nice
day.
Bill
2. Why did God send
John the Baptist into the wilderness to tell cadavers to repent and come
up with fruit showing they had done so before the axe was laid to the root
of the tree? Is God having John demand that these people do
something that is impossible for them under the
circumstances?
2. Why are Peter
and Paul told to do the same (Acts 3:19, 17:30,
26:20)
3. Does the so called
"universally inclusive language" negate the first two verses in the book
of Colossians which tell us who this letter is addressed to? "From
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our
brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in
Christ which are at Colosse...." or doessn't this make a
difference? judyt
Perhaps, Izzy, it would do me good to have
you explain to me how the universally inclusive language of verses like
Col 1.13-14, 16-17, 19-20; 2.9 and 13-15, apply only to those who have
"repented and received" Christ as Lord and Savior -- but not to those who
have not. You are correct that this letter is
written to the "saints," but I fail to see how Paul's language in the
verses mentioned above is inclusive only of them (it
was after all while even the saints of his address "were dead" that
Christ made them alive together with him, having forgiven them all their
trespasses. What, pray tell, can a cadaver do to activate
her own salvation?). In fact, it looks to me
that Paul intentionally expands and then narrows his address repeatedly
throughout the first two chapters of this letter, sometimes referencing
and including all of the created order and other times speaking
specifically to the ministry of Christ's "body, which is the
church." So please, Izzy, set me
straight :>)
