PDA

View Full Version : Ignored scripture?



mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 12:21 AM
24 then comes the end, 10 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians15.htm#foot10) when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 11 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians15.htm#foot11) The last enemy to be destroyed is death, 27 12 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians15.htm#foot12) for "he subjected everything under his feet." But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the one who subjected everything to him. 28 When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will (also) be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

Why do you think this has never, ever been taught in mainstream Christianity?

What does it mean?

Oma
Jan 26th 2009, 12:43 AM
Would it mean the end of Christ's mediatorial reign?

MacGyver
Jan 26th 2009, 12:47 AM
Here are some insights from CORNELIUS À LAPIDE

v. 24
The kingdom is the Church of the faithful and congregation of the elect; not as though God did not now reign over it, for Christ says: “The kingdom of God is within you” (S. Luke xvii. 21), but because sin has somewhat of power over it, because the devil, death, and cares that attack mortals are found in it.

v. 25
Christ must rule the Church till God the Father puts all the devils and the wicked under Him. Till does not denote an end of His reign, for there is no doubt that when His enemies shall have been overcome Christ will reign more truly and for ever, though in another way and with other glory than now.


But when He saith . . . which did put all things under Him. S. Paul adds this lest any one should suppose that the Father has given everything to the Son in such a way as to deprive Himself of authority over them, for so the Father would be less than the Son and subject to Him. Sometimes among men, when fathers are getting old, they make a gift of their goods and offices to their sons, but not so God.


v.28
That God may be all in all. Viz., as Anselm says, that God may have all power over all things and may show that as God He is everything to His elect, or in place of everything else; that He is our life, salvation, power, plenty, glory, honour, peace, and all things, and the end and satisfaction of our desires. So God will rule over all in all things, and will subject all things to Himself and His glory.

Spirit Driven
Jan 26th 2009, 12:54 AM
It means that Christ will reign so well....that he will do away with the need for it.

We then reach a point already foretold by God through Isaiah....

I have sworn by myself, the word has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to me every knee will bow every tounge will swear allegiance.

The Eternal Tormentors and Hell preachers have already suffered the indignation of God, and have died to Sin in the Lake of Fire....and are now at the fore front of giving.....Glory to God..... over giving Satan and Crew knees and tounges as well.

Such Irony!.... but is not that the way of God.

Peace

My Thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways...

Psalms Fan
Jan 26th 2009, 04:39 AM
We know from other passages that Christ's reign is eternal (Dan 7, for instance).

Until does not always denote what it does for us in English, i.e., a change in things after the "until" is complete. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" does not mean that he will cease reigning. It just means that during the time that all his enemies are NOT under his feet, he is reigning.

I think a (probably not "the") key to understanding this is that the Father and Spirit are not reigning right now. It is only the Son who is reigning. When all is said and done, Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father, but that doesn't mean that Christ's reign ends. Rather, the entire Godhead will reign (that God may be all in all). Thus while the Father reigns, Christ will be reigning as well.

mikebr, what do you mean by "never, ever"?

I agree that good stuff like this too often passed up for more fun and exciting things, like how to get rich or an elaborate end-times chart.

markedward
Jan 26th 2009, 06:39 AM
We know from other passages that Christ's reign is eternal (Dan 7, for instance).

Until does not always denote what it does for us in English, i.e., a change in things after the "until" is complete. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" does not mean that he will cease reigning. It just means that during the time that all his enemies are NOT under his feet, he is reigning.Similarly, when Christ said He would be with His disciples "even to the end of the age", does that mean He wouldn't be with them after the end of the age? Of course not, and we know this from other Scripture, such as Revelation 22:3.

mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 12:21 PM
We know from other passages that Christ's reign is eternal (Dan 7, for instance).

Until does not always denote what it does for us in English, i.e., a change in things after the "until" is complete. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" does not mean that he will cease reigning. It just means that during the time that all his enemies are NOT under his feet, he is reigning.

I think a (probably not "the") key to understanding this is that the Father and Spirit are not reigning right now. It is only the Son who is reigning. When all is said and done, Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father, but that doesn't mean that Christ's reign ends. Rather, the entire Godhead will reign (that God may be all in all). Thus while the Father reigns, Christ will be reigning as well.

mikebr, what do you mean by "never, ever"?

I agree that good stuff like this too often passed up for more fun and exciting things, like how to get rich or an elaborate end-times chart.


Have you ever heard this scripture preached from the pulpit. I have not and I've been in church 40 years, read many books, listened to a butt-load of sermons on the internet, tape, cd and I have never, ever heard it preached.

mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 12:23 PM
So.....................what you folks are saying is that it doesn't mean what it is clearly saying.


But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the one who subjected everything to him. 28 When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will (also) be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

Again true to the title of the op. Ignored.

Bernie
Jan 26th 2009, 12:28 PM
Why do you think this has never, ever been taught in mainstream Christianity?

What does it mean?
That the Son will be subjected to the Father at the end works for me because my view of the trinity is much more focused on the Son as the material manifestation of the Father anyway. Methinks the church often becomes too much involved in splitting personalities while missing the Oneness of the Godhead.

As to the "all in all", I wonder if this isn't the same promise spoken by Jesus to His disciples in John 17:19-21: "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me"

A Mormon correspondent years ago used the above to suggest we're all God, but I suspect the "all (or any) as one" with God is a particular alignment of human spirit, mind and body with its original perfection. To be one with Christ and the Father in this sense is not to be the "same", but to be an alignment in being of true with True (or perfect with Perfect), with no stain of falsity (the substance of evil; imperfection) involved in the human equation. Hence, to be "one" in the Jn 17 sense is identical to being "all in all" in the 1Cor 15 sense imo. Seems to me to refer to the future state of perfection of all creation.

mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 12:32 PM
That the Son will be subjected to the Father at the end works for me because my view of the trinity is much more focused on the Son as the material manifestation of the Father anyway. Methinks the church often becomes too much involved in splitting personalities while missing the Oneness of the Godhead.

As to the "all in all", I wonder if this isn't the same promise spoken by Jesus to His disciples in John 17:19-21: "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me"

A Mormon correspondent years ago used the above to suggest we're all God, but I suspect the "all (or any) as one" with God is a particular alignment of human spirit, mind and body with its original perfection. To be one with Christ and the Father in this sense is not to be the "same", but to be an alignment in being of true with True (or perfect with Perfect), with no stain of falsity (the substance of evil; imperfection) involved in the human equation. Hence, to be "one" in the Jn 17 sense is identical to being "all in all" in the 1Cor 15 sense imo. Seems to me to refer to the future state of perfection of all creation.

Thanks Bernie, this is addressing the scripture.:idea:

The Parson
Jan 26th 2009, 02:31 PM
It means that Christ will reign so well....that he will do away with the need for it.

We then reach a point already foretold by God through Isaiah....

I have sworn by myself, the word has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to me every knee will bow every tounge will swear allegiance.

The Eternal Tormentors and Hell preachers have already suffered the indignation of God, and have died to Sin in the Lake of Fire....and are now at the fore front of giving.....Glory to God..... over giving Satan and Crew knees and tounges as well.

Such Irony!.... but is not that the way of God.

Peace

My Thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways...(The Eternal Tormentors and Hell preachers have already suffered the indignation of God, and have died to Sin in the Lake of Fire) You really need to clarify what exactly you are saying here neighbor.

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2009, 02:50 PM
(The Eternal Tormentors and Hell preachers have already suffered the indignation of God, and have died to Sin in the Lake of Fire) You really need to clarify what exactly you are saying here neighbor.
No need to clarify... it is UR junk which is just what is being fished for in the thread. :rolleyes:

mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 02:55 PM
No need to clarify... it is UR junk which is just what is being fished for in the thread. :rolleyes:

Well its not the reason the thread was started.:P

The Parson
Jan 26th 2009, 02:56 PM
Well its not the reason the thread was started.:P
Nor is it something that will continue in this thread.

mikebr
Jan 26th 2009, 03:06 PM
Nor is it something that will continue in this thread.


Show me one place where it seems to be the subject of this discussion. One or two posts does not a thread make. Has anybody even responded to the UR posts? But it wouldn't be the first time you good folks closed down a thread.

ProjectPeter
Jan 26th 2009, 03:09 PM
Show me one place where it seems to be the subject of this discussion. One or two posts does not a thread make. Has anybody even responded to the UR posts? But it wouldn't be the first time you good folks closed down a thread.
Start a thread in the Chat to Ministers section Mike.

The Parson
Jan 26th 2009, 03:12 PM
Calm down Mike, it wasn't towards you or the thread my friend.

markedward
Jan 26th 2009, 04:38 PM
Again true to the title of the op. Ignored.I don't appreciate you telling me that I ignored the Scripture, when I responded directly to it.

Christ said He would be with His disciples even until "the end of the age". Does that mean He was saying He wouldn't be with them after "the end of the age" had come? No. One does not exclude the other.

As I pointed out, the Revelation clearly depicts both the Son and the Father as ruling in the new creation. The Son having delivered the Kingdom up to the Father doesn't mean the same thing as the Son being demoted to a non-ruling status. Daniel 7 and Revelation 21-22 clearly depict the Son as eternally ruling with the Father. The Son is consistently depicted as being subordinate in "rank" (for lack of better terms) to the Father, but, again, the Son delivering the Kingdom to the Father isn't the same thing as the Son stepping down from His throne.

threebigrocks
Jan 26th 2009, 05:09 PM
Before this thread goes off course, it is now closed. Any questions, address them in Chat to the Moderators forum.