DHK said:
Compare these texts:
1 Timothy 6:15-16 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
--The verse specifically says that only God has immortality--ONLY God.
1 Corinthians 15:53-54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
--This passage of Scripture is speaking of the resurrection, the resurrection of the believer. The object here is man and not God. Man has a beginning; God does not. Man will become immortal in the sense that he will put on an immortal or eternal and glorified body. It will last forever. But we have a starting point in history; in the eternal spectrum of life.
Only God is immortal in the sense that he has no beginning and no ending. That is how the word is used in 1Tim.6:16. The Bible does not contradict itself. Words do have different shades of meaning. You ought to know that even from the English language. When immortal describes God; only God is immortal as having no beginning and no ending. But when it describes men it assumes that man has a beginning.
This is not correct reasoning.
You compare the 1 Timothy text to 1 Cor 15 where reference is made to man putting on immortality. But your argument is basically the following, starting from the agreed truth that 1 Timothy 6 states that God alone is immortal:
1. 1 Tim 6 says God alone is immortal
2. 1 Cor 15 says men
become immortal - before the resurrection we are not. We have a starting point for our immortality
3. God has no beginning.
4. Therefore when the word "immortal" is used in reference to God, it must refer to immortality in this "no beginning and no end" sense.
5. Therefore, 1 Tim means that only God is immortal in this specific "no beginning and no end" sense.
6. Therefore 1 Tim makes no statement against the immortality of man in his capacity as a being who, unlike God, has a beginning.
The problem is item 4 - it is completely unjustified and does not follow.
Consider the following "proof" that the statement "Fred alone is rich" does not mean that Joe is not rich:
1. Fred alone is rich (analogous to "God alone is immortal")
2. Joe wins the lottery - he
becomes rich at a specific point in time.
3. Fred has always been rich - he was born rich.
4. Therefore when the word "rich" is used in relation to Fred it is used in the special sense of "Fred has
always been rich".
5. Therefore statement 1 is really only a statement about this special "always been rich" kind of richness.
6. Therefore statement 1 allows us to conclude that Joe indeed can be rich.
I trust the problem is obvious.