Is Paul Arguing for Universal Salvation?

[WSGAC]

Of course all will be made alive. All Christians should believe in the general resurrection, it is foretold in Revelation. The only problem is after the general resurrection comes the judgment and the casting of some into the lake of fire. Just because all are made alive does not mean all will stay alive or go on to everlasting communion with the Triune God. Some will not go on, they even after seeing the Triune God in all his glory will love themselves more or hate him. Those cannot be saved. Others might repent, and God might welcome them, we don't know, yet.

I think the general point of Paul's text is that Adam's curse is cancelled by the salvific work of Christ. Therefore "all will be made alive" means more than resuscitation. It's a qualitative statement, not a functional one. If a man involved in an autowreck died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, but was resuscitated by the triage unit at the emergency room...only to then have to live the rest of his life in a vegetative state, one could hardly say he "was made alive" again. To be sure, "in Christ, all will be made alive" means a whole lot more than a return to consciousness.

[WSGAC]

Why would I do such a thing and chance either (a) guessing or remembering wrong or (b) taking the passage out of its context?

A pretty lousy way to build and teach doctrine.

Well, that's why I began this post with Paul's argument in Romans 9-11, which you've yet to address. In the Corinthian passage Paul is showing how God is taking back what was lost in Adam...that the resurrection of Christ is how God does this. And what is the goal God has in mind? - Redemption of all creation!...where "God may be all in all" (v.28)....but each in his/its proper time.

[Br. Barnabas]

I think the general point of Paul's text is that Adam's curse is cancelled by the salvific work of Christ. Therefore "all will be made alive" means more than resuscitation. It's a qualitative statement, not a functional one. If a man involved in an autowreck died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, but was resuscitated by the triage unit at the emergency room...only to then have to live the rest of his life in a vegetative state, one could hardly say he "was made alive" again. To be sure, "in Christ, all will be made alive" means a whole lot more than a return to consciousness.

I believe you should look at the context of 1 Corinthians 15. In verse 1 St Paul points out who he is speaking to, "brothers and sisters." In other words his fellow Christians, for he reminds them of the Gospel he preached to them. In 12-19 St Paul is setting up who he is arguing against, whose who say there is no resurrection. In these verses he continues to address his arguement to Christians, by saying "our preaching," "your faith."

Now if we move on to 20-22 we see that Paul uses Adam figuritively not matter of factly. He is using it to drive home his point made in verses 20 and 21. St Paul is not really promoting universal salvation in this passage he is using hyperbole to get his point across. Because he goes on to give a brief account of the end.

I also don't believe a case could be made for St Paul claiming universal salvation in Romans. Now it is something he hopes for and would desire, in this way he could be called an optimistic universalist. For St Paul says in Romans 9:3 that he wished he could be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brother, all of his race. If Paul was willing to give up his salvation for all Jews then there is no way that be actually believed all would be saved. He actually doubts all will be saved and was willing to give up his place so that all might be saved.

[markedward]

Here are just a couple of traditional proof-texts that contradict universalism.

Matthew 25.46: "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life."

2 Thessalonians 1.9: They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might...

I think these two examples will suffice for now, in order for me to ask my question: If everyone is saved, regardless of whether they accept Jesus as Lord, how can Scripture specifically make a difference between those who receive everlasting life (the saved) and everlasting punishment/destruction (the unsaved)? According to universalism, all people are saved, and none are unsaved. So how is it Scripture depicts people as being unsaved?

Still waiting on an answer to this, please.

[WSGAC]

Still waiting on an answer to this, please.

I refer you to the title of this thread. The question is about Paul's argument in Romans 9-11.

[Firefighter]

How can a scripture have any merit to the exclusion to all of the others?

Do you think the Bible is true or can we throw certain parts of it out?

Are there contradictions in Paul's writings?

[WSGAC]

I believe you should look at the context of 1 Corinthians 15. In verse 1 St Paul points out who he is speaking to, "brothers and sisters." In other words his fellow Christians, for he reminds them of the Gospel he preached to them. In 12-19 St Paul is setting up who he is arguing against, whose who say there is no resurrection. In these verses he continues to address his arguement to Christians, by saying "our preaching," "your faith."

Now if we move on to 20-22 we see that Paul uses Adam figuritively not matter of factly. He is using it to drive home his point made in verses 20 and 21. St Paul is not really promoting universal salvation in this passage he is using hyperbole to get his point across. Because he goes on to give a brief account of the end.

I also don't believe a case could be made for St Paul claiming universal salvation in Romans. Now it is something he hopes for and would desire, in this way he could be called an optimistic universalist. For St Paul says in Romans 9:3 that he wished he could be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brother, all of his race. If Paul was willing to give up his salvation for all Jews then there is no way that be actually believed all would be saved. He actually doubts all will be saved and was willing to give up his place so that all might be saved.

Point taken on Corinthians, but the movement seems to be towards an end where God is "all in all."

But to your point on Romans. How do you understand Paul's question in 11:11 - Did *they* stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? as it relates to his concluding remark in verses 30-32 -- Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so *they* too have now become disobedient in order that *they* too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Specifically, who are *they* to which Paul is referring?

[Firefighter]

Galatians 5:19-21 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-5 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.

~ Apostle Paul

Universalism soundly refuted by Paul himself.

[WSGAC]

How can a scripture have any merit to the exclusion to all of the others?

Do you think the Bible is true or can we throw certain parts of it out?

Are there contradictions in Paul's writings?

Problem is we construct "systems" by which to understand all scripture together, and it can't be done....as much as we would like our systems to do just that. To give you an extreme example, can you tell me what Song of Songs chapter 2, has to say on the matter we're discussing?

I'm interested in Paul's thought.

[Firefighter]

Please refer to my last post.

Taking a scripture out of context, and then trying to formulate a doctrine out of it is ridiculous. It will run you into many ditches, as can plainly be seen here.

[WSGAC]

Galatians 5:19-21 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-5 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.

~ Apostle Paul

Universalism soundly refuted by Paul himself.

Paul's epistle to the Romans is probably the fullest representation of Paul's thought...his opus in other words. In chaps 9-11 he makes an interesting argument about unfaithful Israel. I notice many here don't want to look at the argument, but want instead to bombard with lots of other texts.

What is Paul's argument in these chapters. What is he developing, and what is the conclusion he reaches?

[WSGAC]

Please refer to my last post.

Taking a scripture out of context, and then trying to formulate a doctrine out of it is ridiculous. It will run you into many ditches, as can plainly be seen here.

You have not yet addressed "context" in Romans 9-11. What is the argument Paul is making?

[Firefighter]

Let's see here... We have one of two options.

1) Either Paul was a schizophrenic liar, the Bible has contradictions in it, and COUNTLESS scriptures are also completely false

- OR -

2) You do not understand what Paul was saying.


Which seems more likely?

[Firefighter]

You have not yet addressed "context" in Romans 9-11. What is the argument Paul is making?

Romans 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

Why would he desire THAT if they were already saved?

[Firefighter]

Romans 10:4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Here Paul places a condition on that salvation...