Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[hedrick]

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.

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.

 

[Fervent]

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.

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."

 

[Fervent]

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.

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.

 

[atpollard]

Delete

 

[atpollard]

Delete

 

[Der Alte]

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.

Here is what the only ECF to quote 1 Cor 15:22 said.
@MMXX @hedrick

Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book V Chap. XII
3.This same, therefore, was what the Lord came to quicken, that as in Adam we do all die, as being of an animal nature, in Christ we may all live, as being spiritual, not laying aside God’s handiwork, but the lusts of the flesh, and receiving the Holy Spirit; as the apostle says in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth.”

Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion. Book V Chap IX
But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete, unless our revival209 in Christ concur in identity of substance with our mortality210 in Adam.

Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion VI. On the Resurrection of the Flesh. Chap. XLVIII
For if “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” (1Co_15:22) their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh, since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. “But every man in his own order,” (1Co_15:23) because of course it will be also every man in his own body.​

 

[ozso]

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."

So much for reading the Bible at face value.

 

[Fervent]

So much for reading the Bible at face value.

How is reading "the many" as "the many" less face value than reading "the many" as "all?"

 

[ozso]

How is reading "the many" as "the many" less face value than reading "the many" as "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.

 

[Fervent]

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.

Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"

 

[hedrick]

Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"

Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses all.

 

[ozso]

Convoluted? All it is is to ask:if Paul meant "all," why not simply say "all?"

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.

 

[Fervent]

Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses 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.

 

[ozso]

Forget many. I should have quoted 5:18, which uses all.

There you go.

"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!"

"18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."

I'm not sure how it could appear any more conclusive than that.

 

[Fervent]

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.

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.

 

[ozso]

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.

 

[ozso]

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.

Convoluted as expected.

 

[Fervent]

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.

 

[ozso]

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.

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.

 

[hedrick]

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.

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.

Paul would almost certainly agree with all of that. But I think that may be a little too neat for this text. Commentators seem a bit vague, though most agree that he wasn’t fully universalist. I think a common explanation would be that Christ was a new beginning bringing a new era where all are saved, but some people are still part of the Adam era. I’m still not sure a full universalist reading is impossible for Paul, but it’s harder to see it for Jesus. Moo adopts an explanation similar to my two eras, but notes that a number of scholars do accept the full universalist reading. He rejects it, not because it doesn’t fit this passage, but because others contradict it. For that we’d need to look at the others to see if he’s right. However I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that Paul thinks the wages of sin are in fact death, and only through Christ will we live. I.e. resurrection only for those in Christ. You might consider this annihilationism, but that’s not Pauline language. I’d say something more selective resurrection.

In Romans, 11:32 is also necessary to look at.