Well, yes, there is more to ‘life’ than existence. But 1. Paul seems to be talking literally in 15:22 about physical life and physical death, and 2. it seems likely to me that 15:22 is particularly dealing with the resurrection of ‘those who belong to Christ’ - the believers.
Yes, Jesus will reign until he has “destroyed all dominion, authority, and power that is set against Him.” You say “overcome,” not Paul. The word Paul uses is katargēsē. It’s only used twice in 1 Cor., but once in Hebrews. Let’s look at another use to further understand its meaning:
“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break/destroy (katargēsē) the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil…” - Hebrews 2:14
He destroyed the power of the devil. He didn’t ‘redeem’ it. So 1 Cor. 15 is sounding pretty compatible with annihilationism to me.
I suppose I’d give the standard Arminian answer: I don’t limit the respect God has for free will. His scope may well have been universal; I don’t know. But, the problem here is that it pits rationality against scripture. I’m certainly not capable of explaining God’s plan of salvation in all its beautiful complexity and mystery! Who can know the mind of God and be his counselor? But I can be faithful to the scriptures and analyze what they say carefully. As much as UR may be more appealing or make more rational sense, that doesn’t make it more biblical.
I have no problem admitting that Col. 1 seems to have universalist overtones; I can see that. Keep in mind who Colossians was written to, though. Paul was confronting problems of Gnosticism, which said that the physical and spiritual were entirely separated and could never be united. In view of the God-man Christ, Paul was ardently defending that - though Christ was human - he was also ‘the firstborn of all creation’ and on and on. He’s defending the cosmic radiance of Christ, and describing him in the most powerful terms he can grasp. He may have been prone to using some intense language here that borders on hyperbole. It would be like explaining the size of earth to a 4-year-old; you may use some bigger words than you would when talking to a 40-year-old.
I believe that Romans 9-11 that affirms the sovereignty of God needs to be understood on the foundation of the vision affirmed in Romans 5 that is the answer to the problem of sin presented in Romans 3. God sovereignly chose Israel not to the exclusion of the rest of the world but for the blessing of the whole world. And God sovereignly blinded the Jews to the reality of who Jesus is to accomplish the reconciliation of the Gentiles. And God will sovereignly move in the Jews some day again for the culmination of the blessing of the whole world. God sovereignly chooses, not for the exclusion of others but for the inclusion of all.
I don’t know that I can “prove” to you anything, I can only share why I’ve come to believe that UR is so foundational to Paul’s writings. Concerning Romans 11, after Paul repeatedly affirms that God sovereignly cut off, hardened Israel and grafted in the Gentiles, and warning the Gentiles that they too could be just as easily cut off, he affirms that God ultimately bound everyone over to disobedience so that He could have mercy on all. And then in the Doxology, Paul in song affirms that everything is ultimately by and for God. As I read through Paul affirming that God lifts some to close relationship with Him and estranges others, He does so for the good of all and ultimately to reconcile all to himself. Paul affirms that God loves all, that all are under the dominion (control, rule, reign, slaves to) sin (3:9) and explicitly says that God justifies all by grace which is to be received in faith (3:23). So is it that justification for us individually is received by faith, or is it that the justification of all is to be received in faith and this faith that God justifies all empowers us to be individually justified! I’ve come to believe both. If God promises to save everyone by grace, then I can trust He’ll save me by grace! If God only saves some by grace, then maybe I’m not part of that some either by His choice or mine!
Anyhow, then in 5 Paul affirms that just as sin came into the world by one man and thus all men ultimately came under the dominion of sin, condemnation, and death; even so by the atonement, the righteous act of Jesus all shall ultimately come under the dominion of righteousness, justification, and life!
Well, must go for now. Will add more later.
Blessings,
Sherman
I love your style and you raise good questions. Just a few notes on central Romans texts at issue. On 5:18f, R. Bell did his doctoral dissertation on this and summarizes his findings In “Romans 5:18,19 & Universal Salvation” in the journal New Testament Studies (2002) 417-432. Also the N.T. scholar at Luther Seminary, A. J. Hultgren, comes to similar conclusions in his new Romans commentary, and in Paul’s Gospel and Mission: His Outlook in Romans(see pages 82-124). (And have you read Yale scholar, Keith de Rose on this (his web page can be googled)? My briefest puzzlement would be how Paul’s 2 “all men” statements (in Adam & in Christ) can be apparently parallel, if they don’t refer to the same inclusive population. Doesn’t this assert that all in Adam will be justified in as plain a way as language would make possible?
On chapters 9-11: I am an N.T. Wright afficionado, but his take on this section appears to have little support, especially that Paul’s reference to “Israel” is only to the spiritual church that is saved, not to ethnic Jews. In studies with Dr. John Barclay, N.T. prof at Durham, he said that a convention of N.T. scholars in Sydney pressed Wright on this after a talk, and every single one of them believed Wright’s interpretation violated the context (Barclay did his Ph.D under Wright). It was Talbott’s interpretation of 9-11 that convinced me to shift from the traditional view. Parry also has a great appendix on it in his revised “Evangelical Universalist.” Are you familiar with their arguments? In brief, it appears to me that Paul is arguing that God can (and will) save the “Israel” who looks lost in unbelief. He ultimately moves from depression over their position to doxology because of the explanation of God’s ways that he has offered. This is so different from the exegesis I was taught at Fuller, that it overturned my understanding of what God can do. Do you follow Wright here, or what do you think Paul in context means by “all Israel” being “saved”?
Grace be with you,
Bob
P.S. If I thought the Bible was a systematic theology, and declared universalism, I too would expect it to emphasize it often in plain language. But if it involves the sort of progressive revelation and historical development that it appears to be, I’m not sure I would. If James D.G. Dunn is right in “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” that most N.T. writers fall short of plainly asserting Jesus’ deity, should we discount that belief? Or if most writers show no awareness of a virgin birth, should we conclude that only two mentions is a huge obstacle to embracing that belief? It seem to me that, like most beliefs, the universalism issue, hangs only upon how convinced one is that some particular texts clearly support it.
Yes, Jesus destroyed the power of the devil, not the devil. If one destroys the power of another, he overcomes them. And Paul is talking about the ressurection, life after death, thus much more than just physical life or existance, but life in the age to come, eternal life.
But you didn’t answer my question. Is it the scope or the effect of the atonement that you limit. Arminianist’s limit the effect/power of the atonement, affirming that it’s not ultimately God alone who saves us, but it’s a combination of God and us. Thus the scope is universal but not the effect, because our salvation for the Arminian is ultimately dependant upon us, our choices, and not upon God. And I don’t think the problem with this is pitting rationality against scripture, but scripture against scripture. Scripture affirms both that God is love and that God is sovereign. If both are accepted as true then it follows that God will sovereignly save all whom he loves. It’s when one believes that not all are saved that one must either limit the sovereignty of God (Arminianism) or the love of God (Calvinism), and find some way to dismiss the verses that affirm the salvation of all.
Arminianist limit the sovereignty of God and instead that concerning salvation man is sovereign, well, some people are sovereign. Many people never have a “choice”, some going to heaven and others not apart from their choice. For example, most evangelicals assume children that die young automatically are saved, and adults who never hear of Jesus and die do not go to heaven because they never chose to believe in Jesus.
Concerning UR being more appealing and making more sense but not being more Biblical, to me it is more biblical and makes more sense. To me there are a few passages that in their context strongly affirm UR (Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20, John 9:42, and 1 Tim. 4:10 in particular). And other passages affirm UR though they are not specifically discussing that subject in the immediate context; rather, UR was affirmed in passing and could be taken as a generality or affirmation.
So you’re saying that Col. 1 has “universalist overtones”, but in short you think that Paul was just speaking in hyperbole, using overstatement poetically to affirm the “cosmic radiance of Christ” but didn’t really mean that Jesus will be Lord of all. One can either accept this and other such passages in faith or dismiss them as being hyperbole, not really meaning what they actually say.
There is nothing wrong with using hyperbole or generalizations in communicating one’s point. Usually though, such hyperbole or generalization is readily identifiable. For example, Jesus said if your eye sins, pluck it out; it’s pretty obvious He didn’t really mean that for several reasons. For one, it’s not the fault of the “eye”, but the fault lies in our selfish desires and twisted thinking. One must assume Col. 1 is hyperbole, for it is not evident based upon the literary context.
It was Col. 1 and Rom. 5 that were the strongest voices calling me to believe in UR. The more I studied their context, ruminated over their fit within their particular books, the more I was drawn to believe in UR. So I switched my studies to the penalty of sin and Hell, quickly and suprisingly finding that Hell was not actually Biblical and finding indications in scripture of post-mortem repentance and salvation, and finding that judgment itself even seems to have remedial connotations. And then finding that Gehenna did not necessarily affirm ECT, even for the Pharisees, was ultimately the tipping point that freed me to accept in faith that God is love, God is sovereign, and that Jesus is savior of all in deed not just in title and ultimately reconciles all of creation to himself.
Using the Weslyan Quadrilateral, I see UR affirmed in 1) scripture and 2) it certainly makes sense, reason. Concerning 3) experience, UR certainly lines up with what I’ve experienced of God. I know that I did not “choose” God, but that He chose me. And having experienced the love and grace of God even in judgment which burnt the hell out of me, my experience of God, salvation, and judgment affirms UR. Only 4) tradition seems to cause me any doubt and is the primary thing that hinders people from having faith in Jesus for the salvation of others, not just themselves. But even concerning tradition, I’m thankful to know that though a relative minority belief, UR is certainly not something that is foreign to believers throughout history. But then I could be wrong and salvation is ultimately dependant upon us (Arminianism) or God does not ultimately love all (Calvinism).
Thanks so much for the thoughts, Bob! First, I’d love to read some of those sources you mentioned at the top, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to find them online. Do you know of any links maybe?
The parallel ‘all’ statements could potentially be ethnic, but it seems less likely to me honestly. If the context was dealing with Jews & Gentiles, then he could state that just as all kinds of men died in Adam, all kinds of men live in Christ. But again, this and Col. 1 are hard to explain away without UR.
I had totally forgotten about that whole aspect of Wright’s interpretation! I loved his commentary on the rest of Romans, but I always disagreed with that bit about Israel in 11. I’m with you on that.
Very good point in the p.s. section. I totally can see that.
Thanks! It appears that our readings of the two Romans crux texts is similar. As you say, seeing the parallel all’s as ‘some’ from ‘all ethnic groups’ doesn’t appear to fit the context. I’m not sure Paul ever uses pas this way to denote some from all groups. I know it can be used hyperbolically, but is there any text where it clearly refers to all ethnic groups? Especially when the noun (“men”) is specified, it seems that the grammatical meaning of, in Adam “all men,” intends to declare the larger species to be sinful (the classic conclusion) as clearly as language can.
Hi Chris,
Well, we’ve looked at the passages that to me affirm UR (particularly Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20) , and several others that affirm UR though they could possibly be taken as generalizations or hyperbole. To me, the weight of evidence in scripture that seems to affirm UR is significant, compelling. Your second statement was:
For me, I find that scripture has very little, if any, support for an “eternal view of hell”, especially as in ECT but even as in Annihilation. For example, as you know, words interpreted Hell in scripture do not mean Hell. Sheol & Hades mean grave, realm of the dead, and do not necessarily imply ECT or even annihilation. Gehenna is Hinnom Valley, an actual place which is used metaphorically to speak of 1) if it was a trash dump having a life end in the trash, 2) historically was a place of idolatry, sacrificing ones children to one’s idol and bringing destruction to one’s life and all that one loves, and 3) “IF” the Pharisees used it to speak of potential non-specific punishment of people in the afterlife, and “IF” Jesus meant to affirm this one doctrine of the Pharisees, it could reference non-specific (remedial, annihilation, and/or indefinitely long) punishment.
To me, something so important as ECT, if it were a real threat, it seems to me that it would be specifically named and described and warned of repeatedly in scripture, especially in the Law. But it’s not once named or even described in the OT. And though ECT is read into the passages warning of Hinnom Valley or the Dead Sea (the lake of the fire and the brimstone), neither specifically affirms such. Thus even the NT does not specifically and repeatedly affirm ECT or even annihilation.
In fact, though passages that affirm UR are couched in didactic or historical narrative passages, passages that affirm punishment of sin are typically presented in metaphor, hyperbole, and even apocalyptic styles of writing, meant to emotionally move people to repentance, but not meant to communicate specifics concerning the negative results of sin.
For me, it was studying what scripture actually affirms concerning the punishment/results of sin that freed me to accept in faith that Jesus does not fail to (Arminianism) or choose not to (Calvinism) save anyone!
I’m so sorry I haven’t replied for these last several days! I’ve been out of town on a church trip and just got home this afternoon. I’ll reply somewhat conclusively as soon as I’m able - though I’ll be out of town again tomorrow. Definitely by Monday.
Thanks for all your replies - sorry about that;
Chris
This is, more or less, what I’ve come to believe in actuality (leaving the debate behind):
I think that ECT is flatly unbiblical
I think that annihilationism and universalism are both viable biblical options
I think that the vast majority of scripture never touches on the topic of ‘hell’ (any punitive afterlife), and that most of the passages traditionally interpreted as referring to hell actually refer to the judgment of AD 70
I think that ‘Gehenna’ will become ‘new Gehenna:’ a real, physical place in a real, physical “new heavens and new earth,” outside the “new Jerusalem”
I think that the hints of universalism in Rev. 21-22 are a universalist’s best argument, but that only a few other passages (including Rom. 5 and Col. 1), actually support the doctrine
I think that where the Bible is vague or silent, a Christian is free to a) imagine what best fits their personal and biblical understanding of God’s character and b) apply it hypothetically to the doctrine in question
I think that all in this new Gehenna will eventually be saved, but that the Bible does not leave enough proof on the matter to be absolutely certain on the matter
Thanks so much for debating guys, I’d love to keep casually discussing stuff!
Chris
Thanks for summing up your conclusions, of which I’m largely sympathetic. I think “certainty” or assurance of one’s convictions as in #7 is often not simply based on the Bible’s clarity. Rather, as you imply in #6, when the Bible seems to offer a mix of complex data or appears less than definitive, it is our sense of God’s character (informed by our sense of the overarching Biblical narrative as well as our conscience) which rightly influences where we place our bets.
I too have enjoyed our conversation and look forward to more to come. And I pray that you are blessed in your studies at school and have great favor and wisdom. Oh, and I appreciate you prefacing you affirmations with “I think”. I’m glad you’re thinking and that you’re not necessarily equating what you “think” with what is necessarily true. It signifies humility to me which is precious in the sight of the Lord!
