Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

Maybe, but if you follow that rule with Paul you get universalism out of several passages. While I doubt that Matthew meant this, eternal Gehenna is parallel to eternal life. It’s not uncommon to think after time in Gehenna you are let into eternal life. While it’s not logically impossible for the reverse, I’m not aware of anyone who thinks it would happen.

I'm curious which specifically you have in mind, because I am aware of none.

 

[hedrick]

I'm curious which specifically you have in mind, because I am aware of none.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NRSV): “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

Romans 5:15 (NRSV): “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many”
many being a semitism for all.

 

[Fervent]

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NRSV): “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

That only appears to work if it's rendered in opposition to the Greek grammar. It is that "all in Christ" are made alive, not that "all are made alive in Christ." So unless you assume that "in Adam" and "in Christ" are the same, there is no parallelism but a contrast. To make this clear let me use to distinct groups in a similar sentiment: "All flowers fade, all gemstones last forever." So no, rendering context destroys the universalist reading rather than preserving it.

 

[Servus]

The most challenging issue to rendering "aionios" in that way is the parallel usage, as there is a symmetry between the punishment and the reward. So eliminating the eternality of the punishment eliminates the eternal aspect of the life. The first consideration for any word's usage is the immediate context, and the dual usage of "aionios" in the passage implies they're being used exactly the same. Which DA has shown when it comes to "aionios zoe" it's essentially iron clad that the life is unending. So the only way to abandon the eternal punishment in Matt. 25 is to similary discard eternal life.

As I've pointed out if Jesus is being literal and talking about eternal life, then Jesus is saying giving someone a cup of water is all anyone has to do receive eternal life. Now since it seems unlikely that eternal life is predicated upon an act of charity, then doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that's not what Jesus meant?

 

[hedrick]

That only appears to work if it's rendered in opposition to the Greek grammar. It is that "all in Christ" are made alive, not that "all are made alive in Christ." So unless you assume that "in Adam" and "in Christ" are the same, there is no parallelism but a contrast. To make this clear let me use to distinct groups in a similar sentiment: "All flowers fade, all gemstones last forever." So no, rendering context destroys the universalist reading rather than preserving it.

NRSV, NIV, HCSB, KVJ all translate as parallel. So do the three commentaries I checked. They agree that it means all who are in Christ, but they think it’s a matter of context, not grammar.

 

[Fervent]

As I've pointed out if Jesus is being literal and talking about eternal life, then Jesus is saying giving someone a cup of water is all anyone has to do receive eternal life. Now since it seems unlikely that eternal life is predicated upon an act of charity then doesn't it seems reasonable to conclude that's not what Jesus meant?

No, that logic doesn't strictly follow. Jesus is clearly talking about how two groups that are extremely similar in every conceivable way will be divided, and the basis of that division is on the people who actually lived the principles. There's a difference between meticulously adhering to details, and becoming pedantic and losing the forest for the trees. The total details of the parable speak that it is one of judgment, and holding to a literalistic view is not the same as holding to a literal view. So no, there's no reason to deny a literal interpretation as if the figurative language cannot be maintained intact.

 

[Fervent]

NRSV, NIV, HCSB, KVJ all translate as parallel. So do the three commentaries I checked. They agree that it means all who are in Christ, but they think it’s a matter of context, not grammar.

Then they miss some simple issues of grammar, like the fact that there is no nominative noun in the sentence which means the full subject is the adjective+prepositional phrase not that the preposition is in the verbal predicate.

 

[Servus]

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NRSV): “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

Romans 5:15 (NRSV): “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many”
many being a semitism for all.

On one hand it's being said that the Bible should be read at face value, but on the other it's being said that the Bible can not be read at face value regarding those passages.

 

[Fervent]

Romans 5:15 (NRSV): “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many”
many being a semitism for all.

This one is certainly parallel, but I'm not sure that "the many" is necessarily a stand-in for all. It's certainly a natural inference when we consider the scope of the fall, but I am unaware of any normal usage where "many" means "all," nor any reason Paul would refrain from simply saying "all" if "all" is what is meant.

 

[Servus]

No, that logic doesn't strictly follow. Jesus is clearly talking about how two groups that are extremely similar in every conceivable way will be divided, and the basis of that division is on the people who actually lived the principles. There's a difference between meticulously adhering to details, and becoming pedantic and losing the forest for the trees. The total details of the parable speak that it is one of judgment, and holding to a literalistic view is not the same as holding to a literal view. So no, there's no reason to deny a literal interpretation as if the figurative language cannot be maintained intact.

See, reading the Bible at face value doesn't seem to be allowed in this instance and others that seem to go against eternal punishment. And it's in these cases where you seem to be building a forest to explain why the Bible doesn't to say what it's appears to be saying at face value.

 

[Der Alte]

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NRSV): “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”
Romans 5:15 (NRSV): “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many”
many being a semitism for all.

All mankind are "in Adam" for all mankind are literal descendants of Adam but all mankind are not inherently "in Christ" that requires a personal, voluntary act on the part of each individual.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

Not in Christ, no redemption.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Not in Christ and walk after the flesh, still condemnation

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.​

Not in Christ, the veil is not taken away, they remain blind.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

Not in Christ, not a new creature, old things are not passed away.

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:​

Not in Christ, not gathered together.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

Not “now in Christ,” still afar off, not nigh.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.​

Not in Christ, do not obtain salvation or eternal glory.

Galatians 2:16
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.​

Not “in Jesus Christ” not justified by faith

1 Thessalonians 4:14
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.​

Those who are not in Jesus, God does not bring with Him.
When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:22, above, do you think he forgot what he wrote in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and the other verses below and vice versa?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that no wrongdoer no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

 

[Fervent]

See, reading the Bible at face value doesn't seem to be allowed in this instance and others that seem to go against eternal punishment. And it's in these cases where you seem to be building a forest to explain why the Bible doesn't to say what it's appears to be saying at face value.

No, the face value is to read it literally. Which is what reading it as a parable about judgment entails. You're simply conflating a reading that refuses to account for figurative language usage entirely with a literal reading that treats the genre in question according to how that genre unfolds.

 

[Servus]

This one is certainly parallel, but I'm not sure that "the many" is necessarily a stand-in for all. It's certainly a natural inference when we consider the scope of the fall, but I am unaware of any normal usage where "many" means "all," nor any reason Paul would refrain from simply saying "all" if "all" is what is meant.

What about Romans 5:15?

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

 

[Fervent]

What about Romans 5:15?

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

What about it?

 

[Der Alte]

As I've pointed out if Jesus is being literal and talking about eternal life, then Jesus is saying giving someone a cup of water is all anyone has to do receive eternal life. Now since it seems unlikely that eternal life is predicated upon an act of charity, then doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that's not what Jesus meant?

Heterodox nonsense! Is that the only verse in your Bible where Jesus speaks about eternal life? You might be correct ONLY if that is the only thing Jesus ever said about eternal life.
Have you ever read John 3:15-16. Evidently not.

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,”, twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

 

[Servus]

No, the face value is to read it literally. Which is what reading it as a parable about judgment entails. You're simply conflating a reading that refuses to account for figurative language usage entirely with a literal reading that treats the genre in question according to how that genre unfolds.

I'm not conflating though. Conflation seems to be what's needed to explain that Jesus didn't say performing an act of charity will be rewarded with eternal life. Unless Jesus really said "life age-during", "life of that age", as Young, Hart and others contend. Then reading it literally at face value seems far less problematic.

 

[Der Alte]

What about Romans 5:15?
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

More heterodox nonsense.
Paul used the word " πολλοι/polloi"/"many," 71 times.
Paul used the word "πας/pas"/"all," 375 times
When Paul wanted to say “all” he used "pas," not "polloi"/”many.”
Paul used “oi polloi”/”the many” 12 times where it clearly does not mean "all."
Romans 12:5, Romans 15:22-23, Romans 16:2,1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 10:33, 2 Corinthians 2:17, 2 Corinthians 8:15, Ephesians 2:4, Colossians 4:13, 1 Timothy 3:13
In one verse 1 Cor 10:33 Paul used “the many,” once, and “all,” twice, in the same verse.

1 Corinthians 10:33
33 Even as I please all [παντα] men in all [πασιν] things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many [των πολλων], that they may be saved.​

Paul certainly did not please every person alive during his lifetime.
Paul certainly did not please all men in literally all things.

 

[Servus]

What about it?

You: "This one is certainly parallel, but I'm not sure that "the many" is necessarily a stand-in for all."

Paul: But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Paul is referring to those who died by the trespass of Adam, which is all mankind, as the many. He then goes on to say the grace of Christ will overflow to the many, which would be all mankind.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not conflating though. Conflation seems to be what's needed to explain that Jesus didn't say performing an act of charity will be rewarded with eternal life. Unless Jesus really said "life age-during", "life of that age", as Young, Hart and others contend. Then reading it literally at face value is far less problematic.

Rendering the words differently doesn't change the implicit meaning, especially as pointed out "eternal life" is not a one-off in this parable but the general promise from Jesus. Any reading that doesn't account for the fact that the "punchline" to not only this parable, but the two previous ones is expressed in Matthew 25:46 fails to account for the parable series entirely. Ultimately, the parable has a spiritual lesson and if that lesson is not about final judgment another must be supplied and no other one accounts for every element of the parable.

 

[Der Alte]

@MMXX See my post [#4137] above your post #4138