Does the apostle Paul teach universal reconciliation?

[Counterpoint]

Does the apostle Paul teach universal reconciliation? Does “all” mean “all?” If not, then how do you explain the following verses?

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:18-19

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28

 

[po18guy]

Does the apostle Paul teach universal reconciliation? Does “all” mean “all?” If not, then how do you explain the following verses? Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:18-19

Many is not all.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

Hebrews 6:2 with instruction[a] about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

All made alive means that at the resurrection, all will rise - some to eternal salvation and others to eternal condemnation. All are still alive.

“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28

“May be” is not “will be”

And, lest we forget the words of the One who actually saves us:

Matthew 26:28
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Again, “many” is not “all”

 

[Counterpoint]

Many is not all.

I said “all,” not “many.” Dose “all” mean “all?”

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Romans 5:18

That being said, we know that “many” here does imply “all” by the context. Why? Because “many” is employed to refer to results of Adam’s disobedience even as “many” is employed to refer to the results of Christ’s obedience. (Also, note the the same symmetry is employed in both verses.)

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19

“May be” is not “will be”

It says “shall be” in the previous two verses.

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

And, lest we forget the words of the One who actually saves us:

Again, “many” is not “all”

I fairly confident that Catholicism holds that Christ’s blood was shed for all humanity for the forgiveneess of sins. IOW, “many” (as in the other verses we have already discussed) really does imply “all.”

 

[po18guy]

When one is making up their own religion, they can make it any size they want.

Redemption is not justification is not salvation. Redemption is universal. Justification and salvation are not. They are particular.

 

[Counterpoint]

When one is making up their own religion, they can make it any size they want.

Redemption is not justification is not salvation. Redemption is universal. Justification and salvation are not. They are particular.

I don’t see anything here that begins to explain the verses I furnished you with in the original post of this thread. The bottom line is that “all” means “all.”

 

[po18guy]

I don’t see anything here that begins to explain the verses I furnished you with in the original post of this thread. The bottom line is that “all” means “all.”

However, we also cannot perform exegesis by dictionary. Remember that Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of the twelve. So, what they taught, Paul taught.

Have a look at the Haydock Commentary for comments on those verses.

 

[Counterpoint]

However, we also cannot perform exegesis by dictionary. Remember that Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of the twelve. So, what they taught, Paul taught.

That’s actually a good point. Paul refers to his teaching as “his gospel” (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Does the apostle Paul teach universal reconciliation? Does “all” mean “all?” If not, then how do you explain the following verses?

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:18-19

The phrase “unto justification of life” is a Greek idiom “eis + accusative”, which indicates the goal of an action, but does not indicate that the action’s goal is actually accomplished. This is how we say in English that “I bought a lottery ticket so I could win.”

As for the second sentence above, I think Paul switches to the word “many” (which hardly ever implies “all” in Greek) because he realizes that the goal of justification may not be actually reached by all people.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22

This passage, and the entire end of this chapter, are more interesting and challenging. I think that George MacDonald, a famous universalist that proved that one might still be Orthodox despite being a universalist, may have taken his cue from this passage.

Nevertheless, there is one aspect of the Greek that doesn’t make the above passage fully convincing, especially in the context of other quotations in Paul that talk about a final judgment where some are permanently separated from God. Here’s the issue: if Paul meant that everyone will be *resurrected *and brought into heaven, it seems like he would have used the New Testament word for resurrection here: egeiro, “awaken”. But instead he uses the word “zoopoeio”, which means elsewhere in the NT “to bring to biological life”. Thus, God brought Adam to biological life, in the beginning.

So the 1 Cor. passage is completely consistent with God giving people new life and then condemning them to hell. I’m not saying dogmatically that it happens, but the passage doesn’t speak against it.

“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28

I don’t understand how this passage supports your case. God could be all in all even if people were in hell.

 

[Counterpoint]

The phrase “unto justification of life” is a Greek idiom “eis + accusative”, which indicates the goal of an action, but does not indicate that the action’s goal is actually accomplished. This is how we say in English that “I bought a lottery ticket so I could win.”

The meaniing is clear: All men are justified by the obedience of the last Adam even as all men are condemned by the disobedience of the first Adam. (To argue otherwise is to render Paul’s argument unintelligible by undermining the symmetry he is attempting to establish between the respective acts of the two “Adams.”)

As for the second sentence above, I think Paul switches to the word “many” (which hardly ever implies “all” in Greek) because he realizes that the goal of justification may not be actually reached by all people.

Paul employs “many” in the former as well as the latter case. If “many” does not mean “all” in the latter, then it doesn’t mean “all” in the former. (You can’t have it both ways.)

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19

This passage, and the entire end of this chapter, are more interesting and challenging. I think that George MacDonald, a famous universalist that proved that one might still be Orthodox despite being a universalist, may have taken his cue from this passage.

Nevertheless, there is one aspect of the Greek that doesn’t make the above passage fully convincing, especially in the context of other quotations in Paul that talk about a final judgment where some are permanently separated from God. Here’s the issue: if Paul meant that everyone will be *resurrected *and brought into heaven, it seems like he would have used the New Testament word for resurrection here: egeiro, “awaken”. But instead he uses the word “zoopoeio”, which means elsewhere in the NT “to bring to biological life”. Thus, God brought Adam to biological life, in the beginning.

So the 1 Cor. passage is completely consistent with God giving people new life and then condemning them to hell. I’m not saying dogmatically that it happens, but the passage doesn’t speak against it.

That’s a very weak argument.

I don’t understand how this passage supports your case. God could be all in all even if people were in hell.

Well, if God is “all in all,” then it is not possible that some will be eternally separated from God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

First of all, Counterpoint, let me say that your tone is not academic nor gentlemanly. To say that “the meaning is clear”, when the person you are speaking with knows Greek and has just pointed out that the meaning of the translation you provided is misleading, does not show a genuine interest in the truth.

I have not made any claim that Paul is not a universalist. I am considering the evidence you brought up. I very much hope, personally, that Paul is a universalist. Do not insult truth by ignoring any evidence that doesn’t support your case.

The meaniing is clear: All men are justified by the obedience of the last Adam even as all men are condemned by the disobedience of the first Adam. (To argue otherwise is to render Paul’s argument unintelligible by undermining the symmetry he is attempting to establish between the respective acts of the two “Adams.”)

You’re right that there is a symmetry, but there is a difference between saying that the free gift came “with the expectation of” justification and saying that the free gift came “with the sure consequence of” justification. The Greek indicates nothing about a sure consequence.

As for “many”, you may be right that the referent of the first “many” is “all men”, but the *meaning *of “many” is not “all”. (For the distinction between “meaning/sense” and “referent”, see Frege.) “Many” does not mean “all” in Greek. Indeed, it is plausible that Paul chose to use the word “many” instead of “all”, in this context, precisely because he did not mean to imply that everyone would receive the salvation Christ offers.

That’s a very weak argument.

Really? If so, please cite for me passages in which “zoopoeio” is used to indicate resurrection into a heavenly body. The NT uses the word “egeiro” almost exclusively to mean that.