All Things?
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will -Ephesians 1:11
Holding, in response to the Calvinistic understanding of Ephesians 2:20 gives this reply:
Yes, but if this is inclusive of literally all things, then what of these passages?
Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
All things are possible for God -- yet as skeptics are fond of pointing out, it is not possible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18). It is also obviously impossible for God to wish Himself out of existence, or to make 2 and 2 actually equal 5, or to make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it. "All things" here clearly does not include certain things but is expressive of a certain context. One more example will suffice:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
As I have noted elsewhere, "All things? Including the living habits of sea slugs?" The example is facetious, but nevertheless makes a certain point. "All things" is not a literal expression but has contextual limits; the phrase expresses completeness within a context.
Holding commits a serious mistake by taking one or two verses that say "all things" (But clearly cannot mean so) and then juxtaposes it to Ephesians 1:11 to make it fit his line of thinking. Suppose we grant that all things cannot mean "all things". What then about this passage:
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.- 1 John 3:20 (Emphasis Mine)
Does this mean that God does not know some things? Hardly. This is obviously what happens if you follow Holding's conclusion to its logical end.
One thing to note is that the passages that Holding cite can clearly be shown that to interpret it literally would lead to an absurd conclusion. However, would interpreting Ephesians 1:11 or 1 John 3:20 literally lead to a ridiculous conclusion? No. Likewise, I do not see any reason why we should grant that the "all things" in Eph. 1:11 does not mean "all things" unless it can be shown within the context that to interpret it literally would lead to absurdity.
**
On other matters, I'll be away from blogging for perhaps about a week, as I'll be crazy in preparations for my college (Orientation being five days away). I'll try to get back ASAP!
Holding, in response to the Calvinistic understanding of Ephesians 2:20 gives this reply:
Yes, but if this is inclusive of literally all things, then what of these passages?
Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
All things are possible for God -- yet as skeptics are fond of pointing out, it is not possible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18). It is also obviously impossible for God to wish Himself out of existence, or to make 2 and 2 actually equal 5, or to make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it. "All things" here clearly does not include certain things but is expressive of a certain context. One more example will suffice:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
As I have noted elsewhere, "All things? Including the living habits of sea slugs?" The example is facetious, but nevertheless makes a certain point. "All things" is not a literal expression but has contextual limits; the phrase expresses completeness within a context.
Holding commits a serious mistake by taking one or two verses that say "all things" (But clearly cannot mean so) and then juxtaposes it to Ephesians 1:11 to make it fit his line of thinking. Suppose we grant that all things cannot mean "all things". What then about this passage:
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.- 1 John 3:20 (Emphasis Mine)
Does this mean that God does not know some things? Hardly. This is obviously what happens if you follow Holding's conclusion to its logical end.
One thing to note is that the passages that Holding cite can clearly be shown that to interpret it literally would lead to an absurd conclusion. However, would interpreting Ephesians 1:11 or 1 John 3:20 literally lead to a ridiculous conclusion? No. Likewise, I do not see any reason why we should grant that the "all things" in Eph. 1:11 does not mean "all things" unless it can be shown within the context that to interpret it literally would lead to absurdity.
**
On other matters, I'll be away from blogging for perhaps about a week, as I'll be crazy in preparations for my college (Orientation being five days away). I'll try to get back ASAP!
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 23, 2005 at 10:46 AM.
|
