In an exchange with Sam Shamoun in his comment section. Sam tries to debunk Calvinism and he fails to do so. I informed him that he missed the point in his video attacking Calvinism. I explain that the reformed perspective on Colossians 1:20 is directed towards an eschatological interpretation and that he is inconsistent in his interpretation. I argued he ended up creating difficulty between the members of the Trinity. That reformed Christians maintain that faith is the means by which we are united with Christ and is not irrelevant. He deleted my original statements and I will try to represent the conversation here.
“you miss the point since the same eisegesis leads to the same conclusion that if Christ made peace by the blood of his cross fur all things they he created then that means everyone will be saved since their faith is irrelevant to what Christ accomplished. So your silly little argument only means that at the end of the age everyone will be saved and reconciled to God, including Satan. Therefore Origen was right and the universalist ends up winning all because of your shameless perversion of Scripture to defend your man made tradition.”
The issue is that your interpretation of Colossians 1 entails universal salvation. I provided a counter view on the text. Does he think that rocks need to believe in the Gospel? You didn’t respond to what I said. All universal atonement interpretations are identical to the Universalist interpretation of Scripture. You and Origen are brothers and you are just more inconsistent.
You stating that my belief entails that faith is irrelevant isn’t proving it. My argument is “silly” if you don’t understand the Trinitarian plan of salvation. The only perversion that is occurring to the Bible is your beliefs about unaided and uncaused human free will.
“here we go with the rhetoric. Do it one more time and see how fast I ban you. Let me further simplify this so you get this time. IF your argument is sound that Christ paid the debt of your sin on the cross and that your faith is irrelevant in that respect THEN the same gross illogic would further mean mean that since Christ reconciled and made peace BY HIS BLOOD ON THE CROSS for ALL THINGS that he created in heaven and earth then this inevitably results in the salvation of the entire creation, since faith is irrelevant to the fact that Christ paid the debt of all sin for all creation by his blood shed on the cross. AND NO THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION, BUT IS THE RESULT OF YOUR SHAMELESS BUTCHERING OF SCRIPTURE IN ORDER TO FORCE IT TO AGREE WITH YOUR MAN MADE TRADITION. Like I said, you and Origen would have loved each other accept for the fact that he is more consistent than you. Now my room is open and instead of running your mouth off here please join me and debate me on your man made tradition so we see how we you do.”
Sam complains about the media not covering the atrocities of Islam and how Shabir Ally avoids debating him, then he shows his hypocrisy by deleting our conversation. Sam constantly uses rhetoric unbecoming of a Christian Apologist and simply can’t take the fact that I disagree with him. That I will argue instead of taking his word for it. That is why he deleted the conversation.
“IF your argument is sound that Christ paid the debt of your sin on the cross…”
Sam seems ignorant that Christian theology has taught that Christ paid for sins 2,000 years ago on the Cross. The news might just be getting to him. Does he think the atonement happened in Kansas in 2007? or in China in 1995? Where and when does Sam think the atonement happened? Does he think faith saves you? Does he confuse grace with faith? Why does God show us grace?
“and that your faith is irrelevant in that respect”
Notice how Sam ignores the statements I said about how faith is the means by which Christ is applied. He seems to not understand that faith alone implies Christ alone.
He continues to ignore my point about how Colossians 1 goes beyond soteriological categories and is in eschatological categories. Colossians 1:20 is using OT imagery of warfare. This is about Christ preeminence over all things. This is related to John’s concepts in Revelation 20-22. This cosmic renewal and restoration and the absolute Lordship, power, and majesty of Christ. James Dunn and Douglas Moo back that idea up in their commentaries:
“The act of reconciliation is described in the uniquely compounded verb ἀποκαταλλάσσω, which is used in literary Greek only here, in 1:22, and in Eph. 2:16 and was therefore quite possibly coined by Paul (F. Büchsel, TDNT 1.258). Like the simpler form, καταλλάσσω (Rom. 5:10; 1 Cor. 7:11; 2 Cor. 5:18–20), it presumes a state of estrangement or hostility. In other words, between the two strophes, and the two phases of divine activity in Christ, there is presupposed an unmentioned event or state, that is, presumably the falling of the cosmos under the domination of the heavenly powers created as part of τὰ πάντα (1:16), the state already spoken of in 1:13 (“the power of darkness”), an ongoing crisis now resolved in the cross (see on 2:15)…In its elements it is strongly Pauline, but the phrase itself is unique in Paul. Moreover, the combination of the elements (“blood” and “cross”) and the present context put them at some remove from the more characteristic Pauline usage: the “blood” of Christ in Paul more naturally evokes the thought of his death as a bloody sacrifice (Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; and cf. Eph. 2:13–18 with Heb. 10:19), whereas here the imagery of warfare and triumph (2:15) suggests rather the blood of battle. And in Paul the “cross” usually evokes thought of shame and embarrassment because of the shamefulness of death on a cross (1 Cor. 1:17–18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12; Phil. 2:8; cf. Heb. 12:2), whereas here it is itself an instrument of warfare by which peace is achieved (see on 2:14–15). …
What is being claimed is quite simply and profoundly that the divine purpose in the act of reconciliation and peacemaking was to restore the harmony of the original creation, to bring into renewed oneness and wholeness “all things,” “whether things on the earth or things in the heavens” (see on 1:16). That the church has a role in this is implied in the correlation of 1:18a with 1:20. And when we include the earlier talk of the gospel “in all the world (κόσμος) bearing fruit and growing” (1:6), and the subsequent talk of the ages-old mystery being made known among all the nations (1:27), the implication becomes clear: it is by its gospel living (1:10) and by its gospel preaching (1:27) that the cosmic goal of reconciled perfection will be achieved (1:28; cf. Findeis 405–15, 422–26).
The vision is vast. The claim is mind-blowing. It says much for the faith of these first Christians that they should see in Christ’s death and resurrection quite literally the key to resolving the disharmonies of nature and the inhumanities of humankind, that the character of God’s creation and God’s concern for the universe in its fullest expression could be so caught and encapsulated for them in the cross of Christ (cf. already 1 Cor. 1:22–25, 30). In some ways still more striking is the implied vision of the church as the focus and means toward this cosmic reconciliation—the community in which that reconciliation has already taken place (or begun to take place) and whose responsibility it is to live out (cf. particularly 3:8–15) as well as to proclaim its secret (cf. 4:2–6).”
Dunn, J. D. G. (1996). The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 102-104). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Paternoster Press.
Colossians 1:20 teaches, then, not “cosmic salvation” or even “cosmic redemption,” but “cosmic restoration” or “renewal.” Through the work of Christ on the cross, God has brought his entire rebellious creation back under the rule of his sovereign power. Of course, this “peace” is not yet fully established. The “already/not yet” pattern of New Testament eschatology must be applied to Colossians 1:20. While secured in principle by Christ’s crucifixion and available in preliminary form to believers, universal peace is not yet established. It is because of this work of universal pacification that God will one day indeed be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) and that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11). While modern theologians have therefore often greatly exaggerated the implications of v. 20 in the service of an unbiblical universalism, this passage does, indeed, assert a thoroughly biblical universalism: that God’s work in Christ has in view a reclamation of the entire universe, tainted as it is by human sin (cf. Rom. 8:19–22). That fallen human beings are the prime objects of this reconciliation is clear from the New Testament generally and from the sequel to this text (vv. 21–23). But it would be a serious mistake (not always avoided) to limit this “reconciling” work to human beings. The “peace” that God seeks is a peace that not only applies to humans in their relationship to God but also to humans in their relationship with one another (hence the mandate for social justice) and to humans in their relationship with the natural world (hence the mandate for a biblically oriented environmentalism).
Moo, D. J. (2008). The letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (pp. 136–137). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.