It’s an idiom. If you don’t accept that look at 5:18. Again, I’m not sure Paul actually intended universalism. I was just pointing out that you can’t always use parallelism simply.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It’s an idiom. If you don’t accept that look at 5:18. Again, I’m not sure Paul actually intended universalism. I was just pointing out that you can’t always use parallelism simply.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 is true of all is true of the many, but what is true of the many is not necessarily true of all. We cannot assume that Paul wasn't being deliberate in his word choice specifically to exclude misunderstanding it as "all" while expressing the multiplying effect. So "many" is not necessaly meant to stand in and mean "all," especially as the statement is preserved without necessarily treating it as "all." So as I said, there's no reason to treat it as a stand-in especially as it is not a typical thing to do and there is nothing precluding Paul from using "all" if he meant "all."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.
I'm not sure we can presuppose that, especially with the deliberate usage Paul often demonstrates. It's quite possible Paul specifically used "many" to exclude a universalist reading.It’s an idiom. If you don’t accept that look at 5:18. Again, I’m not sure Paul actually intended universalism. I was just pointing out that you can’t always use parallelism simply.
Here is what the only ECF to quote 1 Cor 15:22 said.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.
What is true of all is true of the many, but what is true of the many is not necessarily true of all. We cannot assume that Paul wasn't being deliberate in his word choice specifically to exclude misunderstanding it as "all" while expressing the multiplying effect. So "many" is not necessaly meant to stand in and mean "all," especially as the statement is preserved without necessarily treating it as "all." So as I said, there's no reason to treat it as a stand-in especially as it is not a typical thing to do and there is nothing precluding Paul from using "all" if he meant "all."
How is reading "the many" as "the many" less face value than reading "the many" as "all?"
Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"Your explanation was extremely convoluted. I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I doubt it does to others. How many died by the trespass of the one man? Some or all? If it's all, then it follows that the grace of Christ that overflows to the many, overflows to all. That's seeing the passage at face value. Your version seems to amount to a confusing fine print disclaimer being attached.
Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses all.Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"
Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"
That's much more demonstrative of your point about symmetric parallels, but it still comes down to a question of context. Of course, one of the central issues here is somewhat destroyed by later developments surrounding "dikaiosin" that render it equivalent with salvation when that's not uniformly how its used by Paul. The symmetry and usage is identical, in the same sense that Adam brought condemnation and death so too Jesus brought justification and life. It's simply that the theologies that developed around those ideas are mistaken in how they bring them about.Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses all.
Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses all.
Looking at Paul's usage is more illustrative than trying to create our own meaning. As I said before, what is true of "all" is true of "many" but what is true of "many" is not true of "all." And given Paul is teaching using terms of art is not something to be expected of him, as clarity of thought is his principal aim. So unless there is an established idiom where "many" and "all" are used interchangeably it is more likely that Paul used the lesser word with intention not as an idiom.Is asking why he used one word instead of another a better approach than coming to a simple conclusion? Or are you doing that to deflect from answering the question, which was, how many died by the trespass of the one man? Some or all?
Now a straightforward answer would be either some or all. A or B.
However, not meaning to be rude, I don't think you'll ever give a straightforward A or B answer. Based on past experience, I expect you'll give a convoluted explanation as to why it's not as simple as A or B. And when I tell you I don't understand that or that that it doesn't make sense, you'll say or imply that's due to some deficiency on my part.
That's much more demonstrative of your point about symmetric parallels, but it still comes down to a question of context. Of course, one of the central issues here is somewhat destroyed by later developments surrounding "dikaiosin" that render it equivalent with salvation when that's not uniformly how its used by Paul. The symmetry and usage is identical, in the same sense that Adam brought condemnation and death so too Jesus brought justification and life. It's simply that the theologies that developed around those ideas are mistaken in how they bring them about.
Looking at Paul's usage is more illustrative than trying to create our own meaning. As I said before, what is true of "all" is true of "many" but what is true of "many" is not true of "all." And given Paul is teaching using terms of art is not something to be expected of him, as clarity of thought is his principal aim. So unless there is an established idiom where "many" and "all" are used interchangeably it is more likely that Paul used the lesser word with intention not as an idiom.
The complicating factor is the notion of "original sin" as developed centuries later. Adam's sin brought death into the world as a curse, so too Jesus' righteousness brought life into the world through providing the ransom necessary. But all die not because of Adam's sin which brought death(as a curse), but because all sinned.
The complicating factor is the notion of "original sin" as developed centuries later. Adam's sin brought death into the world as a curse, so too Jesus' righteousness brought life into the world through providing the ransom necessary. But all die not because of Adam's sin which brought death(as a curse), but because all sinned.
I think the point he was making is that Adam brought death, but we die because we participate via sin. Similarly Christ brought life, but we participate through faith. So the asymmetry is because all sin but not everyone has faith.Your last few posts are something I'll literally need to sleep on. I'm too tired to try sorting it out for now. Maybe hedrick will have better luck with it in the meantime.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?