Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

Well if you really want to get into it I suppose reading or even just listening to the two Greek Orthodox PhD theologians, David Bentley Hart and Brad Jersak would take you there better than anyone here. While I'm not appealing to their authority, it seems a foregone conclusion they didn't just fall of the turnip truck and have studied every angle pretty thoroughly.

No one is saying that they simply fell off the turnip truck, but the issue is one of grammar and nothing more. The argument regarding what the function of "in" is in the sentence doesn't take expert testimony, and the only way an expert opinion would be needed is if it was a question of whether some obscure grammatical law applied which it's not. There is one issue that an expert opinion would be needed for in the sentence, which is the question of ellipsis(an omitted word is inferred from the context) but there's no reason to even look for ellipsis because the subject is fully articulated between the all being in the nominative and the prepositional phrase carrying the article. And with the preposition occuring in the subject, rather than the verbal predicate, it functions to complete the designation of the subject i.e. "all in Adam," or "All in Christ."

And the fact that the experts relied on the English grammar rather than commenting directly on the Greek is a sign that they're being dishonest with their positioning since it is entirely inappropriate to look at English grammar to determine the Greek meaning.

Edit: I tackled the bad argument of 1 Cor 15 rather than what I've read of the argument surrounding aionios in Matt. 25. You referred to DA's argument as a "gish gallop" earlier, which would be a good description of the argument Bentley Hart makes around "aionios." It's voluminous research, but the contexts he looked at have nothing to do with the context of Matt. 25. and from what I can tell he completely ignores the narrative context of the Olivet discourse as a whole where wrath and judgment are hammered upon at length. We can also look at the narrative parallels in Luke 21, Mark 13 with the lesson of the fig tree that ties the parables in Matt 25 with Matt 24. Everything in the context testifies to it being unending which is why there are only a handful of cherry picked translators that deny as much. Why should we not consider it eternal from the context its found in?

 

[Ceallaigh]

No one is saying that they simply fell off the turnip truck, but the issue is one of grammar and nothing more. The argument regarding what the function of "in" is in the sentence doesn't take expert testimony, and the only way an expert opinion would be needed is if it was a question of whether some obscure grammatical law applied which it's not. There is one issue that an expert opinion would be needed for in the sentence, which is the question of ellipsis(an omitted word is inferred from the context) but there's no reason to even look for ellipsis because the subject is fully articulated between the all being in the nominative and the prepositional phrase carrying the article. And with the preposition occuring in the subject, rather than the verbal predicate, it functions to complete the designation of the subject i.e. "all in Adam," or "All in Christ."

And the fact that the experts relied on the English grammar rather than commenting directly on the Greek is a sign that they're being dishonest with their positioning since it is entirely inappropriate to look at English grammar to determine the Greek meaning.

For as in Adam Ἀδὰμ (adam)
all πάντες (pantes)
die, ἀποθνῄσκουσιν(apothnēskousin)
so οὕτως (outōs)
also καὶ (kai)
in Christ Χριστῷ (christō)
all πάντες (pantes)
will be made alive. ζῳοποιηθήσονται (zōopoiēthēsontai)

 

[Ceallaigh]

Maybe? Perhaps? Why the ambivalence? The NT clearly tells us the meaning of aionios and aion, several times. I have posted a list of 26 NT verses, multiple times, where aionios is unarguably described/defined as eternal, for ever, everlasting. And ain't nobody, no how ever even tried to refute me.

I know by now from experience that when your essays are refuted, you never seem to acknowledge it. You act like it never happened.

 

[Fervent]

For as in Adam Ἀδὰμ (adam)
all πάντες (pantes)
die, ἀποθνῄσκουσιν(apothnēskousin)
so οὕτως (outōs)
also καὶ (kai)
in Christ Χριστῷ (christō)
all πάντες (pantes)
will be made alive. ζῳοποιηθήσονται (zōopoiēthēsontai)

What's the point of this post?

 

[Saint Steven]

I know the Bible talks about us as being ministers and teachers in the world to come.

Perhaps this one?
Which indicates an age to come. The context details it out a bit more.

Ephesians 1:21 NIV
far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

 

[Ceallaigh]

What's the point of this post?

Where's the vital "in"?

 

[Saint Steven]

How tragic that people die without confessing Jesus as Lord, for a day is coming when even in death, they will be required to make this confession!

No; not tragic at all if you know the definition of acknowledge.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps this one?
Which indicates an age to come. The context details it out a bit more.

Ephesians 1:21 NIV
far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

That would certainly be one of them.

 

[Fervent]

Where's the vital "in"?

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.

Bolded.

 

[Ceallaigh]

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.

Bolded.

Alright, I just woke up.

 

[Fervent]

Source?

That's 1 Cor 15:22 in the NA28

 

[Ceallaigh]

That's 1 Cor 15:22 in the NA28

I already edited that. I just woke up. I'm following now.

 

[Fervent]

I already edited that. I just woke up. I'm following now.

The real issue at the heart of the question is: where's the noun for the subject?

 

[Fervent]

No; not tragic at all if you know the definition of acknowledge.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

While this certainly speaks in favor of a universalist position especially when the reference to Isaiah is considered, it is pretty well undermined by the rest of Philippians especially 3-4. It's also clear that both contexts the idea being conveyed is simply that God's victory will be total, which could easily mean those who God consigns to punishment will fully agree with their fate.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No one is saying that they simply fell off the turnip truck, but the issue is one of grammar and nothing more. The argument regarding what the function of "in" is in the sentence doesn't take expert testimony, and the only way an expert opinion would be needed is if it was a question of whether some obscure grammatical law applied which it's not. There is one issue that an expert opinion would be needed for in the sentence, which is the question of ellipsis(an omitted word is inferred from the context) but there's no reason to even look for ellipsis because the subject is fully articulated between the all being in the nominative and the prepositional phrase carrying the article. And with the preposition occurring in the subject, rather than the verbal predicate, it functions to complete the designation of the subject i.e. "all in Adam," or "All in Christ."

And the fact that the experts relied on the English grammar rather than commenting directly on the Greek is a sign that they're being dishonest with their positioning since it is entirely inappropriate to look at English grammar to determine the Greek meaning.

While most people were taught all that stuff in school a long time ago, probably most people only have a fuzzy recollection of it. The argument I see presented most often is that that while all are in Adam, not all are in Christ because they're not believers. I saw it pointed out that we all descended from Adam, but we didn't descend from Christ. However, Adam is called the son of God in the genealogy of Jesus. So it seems to me that really we are descendants of God. Now apply John 1:1-3 and we are descendants of Christ. Put in compressed terms, while Adam is our father, Christ God is our grandfather. In other words, it starts with Christ rather than Adam. And in that way through order of descension, we are more in Christ than we are in Adam. Christ is the alpha, Adam is the beta. Essentially God in the form of Jesus, reversed what his son Adam did because he proceeds and supersedes Adam.

Edit: I tackled the bad argument of 1 Cor 15 rather than what I've read of the argument surrounding aionios in Matt. 25. You referred to DA's argument as a "gish gallop" earlier, which would be a good description of the argument Bentley Hart makes around "aionios." It's voluminous research, but the contexts he looked at have nothing to do with the context of Matt. 25. and from what I can tell he completely ignores the narrative context of the Olivet discourse as a whole where wrath and judgment are hammered upon at length. We can also look at the narrative parallels in Luke 21, Mark 13 with the lesson of the fig tree that ties the parables in Matt 25 with Matt 24. Everything in the context testifies to it being unending which is why there are only a handful of cherry picked translators that deny as much. Why should we not consider it eternal from the context its found in?

Did you come to that conclusion on your own by reading Hart's work, or are you going by what someone said about it?

 

[IWalkAlone]

Would it be sin or foolishness to pray for the whole world? If not then there is hope

 

[Saint Steven]

Would it be sin or foolishness to pray for the whole world? If not then there is hope

We are actually encouraged to do just that.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

 

[Fervent]

While most people were taught all that stuff in school a long time ago, probably most people only have a fuzzy recollection of it. The argument I see presented most often is that that while all are in Adam, not all are in Christ because they're not believers. I saw it pointed out that we all descended from Adam, but we didn't descend from Christ. However, Adam is called the son of God in the genealogy of Jesus. So it seems to me that really we are descendants of God. Now apply John 1:1-3 and we are descendants of Christ. Put in compressed terms, while Adam is our father, Christ God is our grandfather. In other words, it starts with Christ rather than Adam. And in that way through order of descension, we are more in Christ than we are in Adam. Christ is the alpha, Adam is the beta. Essentially God in the form of Jesus, reversed what his son Adam did.

When we are born in the flesh we are born into Adam, to be in Christ we must be born again. Your argument is more how a lawyer would create a case beginning with a conclusion and trying to rationalize it rather than beginning with the text itself and trying to determine what it is conveying. Context implies the two clauses are being contrasted with one another so it is inherent that it be comparing two different subjects meaning "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" refers to two different groups.

Did you come to that conclusion on your own by reading Hart's work, or are you going by what someone said about it?

I skimmed his work for primary sources.

 

[Der Alte]

***

No; not tragic at all if you know the definition of acknowledge.
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

I notice you have made a grammatical argument quoting from the venerable Strong's which OBTW is over a century old and has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions.
Do you know anything about the subjunctive mood in Greek?

Introduction to Subjunctive Mood
1. As stated in the area giving a short definition of the subjunctive mood, the subjunctive indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. It has a number of specific uses and is oftentimes used in conditional statements (i.e. 'If...then...' clauses) or in purpose clauses.
Link:
More Detailed Use of the Greek Subjunctive Mood - Framed View​

Here is the passage under discussion.

Philippians 2:10-11
10 ιναG2443 CONJ ενG1722 PREP τωG3588 T-DSN ονοματιG3686 N-DSN ιησουG2424 N-GSM πανG3956 A-NSN γονυG1119 N-NSN καμψηG2578 V-AAS-3S επουρανιωνG2032 A-GPM καιG2532 CONJ επιγειωνG1919 A-GPN καιG2532 CONJ καταχθονιωνG2709 A-GPM
11 καιG2532 CONJ πασαG3956 A-NSF γλωσσαG1100 N-NSF εξομολογησηταιG1843 V-AMS-3S οτιG3754 CONJ κυριοςG2962 N-NSM ιησουςG2424 N-NSM χριστοςG5547 N-NSM ειςG1519 PREP δοξανG1391 N-ASF θεουG2316 N-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM​

καμψη G2578 V-AAS-3S, "should bow", the highlighted "sigma" means subjunctive.
εξομολογησηται G1843 V-AMS-3S "should confess,."the highlighted "sigma" means subjunctive.

 

[Ceallaigh]

When we are born in the flesh we are born into Adam, to be in Christ we must be born again. Your argument is more how a lawyer would create a case beginning with a conclusion and trying to rationalize it rather than beginning with the text itself and trying to determine what it is conveying. Context implies the two clauses are being contrasted with one another so it is inherent that it be comparing two different subjects meaning "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" refers to two different groups.

But Jesus was also born in the flesh. He was born in the flesh to replace Adam. In John 5:58 Jesus declares "before Abraham was born, I am!". He could have just as rightly said "before Adam was born/created, I am!". How can we be in Adam without first being in Jesus since Adam is the son of God/Jesus?