Hey there,
I’d like to have a friendly debate about universalism. I’m generally persuaded by the UR view myself, but for the sake of learning and studying I’d love to play the devil’s advocate and debate against it.
I’d like the debate to stay almost entirely in a biblical realm, not a philosophical/logical one. I’m looking for an exegetical argument, not a rational one. Debating is simply my favorite (and most effective) learning method.
Any takers?
Thanks so much,
Chris
Hey Chris
If you have the time, have a look at this debate series between Jason Pratt and TurretinFan.
You will need to take notes and pause often because I have never come across anybody that talks as fast as Jason 
Chris,
That’s a good idea; I’m covered over at the moment, so I can’t volunteer as the opponent, but I hope someone else will volunteer! 
Chris, I’d be glad to debate you on UR, mono y mono. I am limited in time though so it might be slow going and over a long period of time, maybe only a few posts a week. If no one else wants to “take you on” though, if the slowness is acceptable to you, I’d be glad too. Let’s see if anyone else though responds and wants to, I’ll gladly defer.
Wonderful! This sounds great. I’m busy with school myself, so I’m glad to hear it’ll be slow-going and relaxed. Since you’re the pro, would you like to start? I suppose my basic contentions will be:
So basically, even if you can prove that the Bible is vague in regards to the eternal conscious torment view, I’m arguing that you still can’t prove that UR is a more biblical replacement.
I’d like to start off with one word “gehenna”. Jesus used this word when talking about the fate of the wicked. However bear in mind that he was talking to a Jewish audience who knew gehenna as a temporary place of reflection and repentance on the way to the world to come. The Jewish idea is that the worse you are in life the longer you spend in gehenna, with the worst sinners taking a year to get out. That’s why the Jews say Kadesh for the dead eleven times, because by the twelfth month they believe the soul has moved on. This idea is, according to the rabbis I have contacted, very old. It appers to be in Maimonedes, and is believed to have been current in the time of Jesus.
The second word is “brimstone”. Quite a lot of the burning images in the bible feature burning sulphur, but it appears that in the ancient world this was not associated with punishment, but with the idea of using sulphur dioxide as a disinfectant. In other words “fire and brimstone” is an image of cleaning, not of torturing.
That’s just two to start with.
Good stuff Wormwood. Can you share more about your sources?
Thx
Some very good points, but I haven’t ever found sources reliably proving that the ‘temporary’ concept of Gehenna was around back in Jesus’ day. Can you show me a source, or maybe quote some 1st century rabbis with that viewpoint? Jews now generally believe Gehenna will be remedial, but I’m not convinced without sources that those in and prior to Jesus ever thought that.
Good morning Chris,
Did you want this to be a one-on-one debate? With most people on this site affirming UR that might be more “fair” for you and simpler for me (fewer people to introduce concepts and take the debate in different directions). Concerning your initial affirmations, I’d affirm much to the contrary.
Scripture provides abundant support for the concept that Jesus really is the savior of all (in deed not just in title, 1 Tim. 4:10), that God’s plan was/is to reconcile all of creation (Col. 1:20), that the atonement is not limited in either Scope (Calvinism) or Effect/Power (Arminianism) but fully accomplished/es the will of God (Rom. 5:18).
Scripture also affirms that the wages of sin is death (destruction, consumption by evil in this present evil age) not ECT. Jesus saves us from our sins, raises us to life and doesn’t leave us dead in our sins.
If you’d like, we can start with looking at #1, the many passages that affirm, or at least seem to affirm at face value Universal Reconciliation.
I put it up on an “Ask the rabbi” site and was assured that it had been Jewish thought from time immemorial. I’ll see what I can dig out.
Concerning Jesus’ use of Hinnom Valley, Jesus does not explain what he meant, and it is Matthew who wrote to the Jews who uses it the most. I see 3 possible meanings of the metaphor:
Possible Geographical Context. -Some scholars believe Hinnom Valley was used as a trash dump, which fits the concept of “eternal fire” (even purposefully fueled by sulfur/brimstone) to burn up the trash and no shortage of maggots (worms that don’t die). This would warn of a person’s life winding up in the trash, being worthless, good for nothing but the dogs, wasted!
Concrete Historical Context - Hinnom Valley was where Israel built the Idol Molech with a head of a bull and body of a man and belly that was a furnace. Their idolatry resulted in them even sacrificing their children, burning them in the flames. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back of God’s mercy and brought judgment upon Jerusalem, destruction by the Babylonians, dead bodies cast into, stacked high in Hinnom Valley. To me, this is the most solid meaning behind Jesus’ warnings concerning Hinnom Valley, in essense saying, “Get the sin/idols out of your life, if you gottat cut your arm off or pluck your eye out to stop it, do it! If you don’t you’ll end up sacrificing your own children to them and bringing death and destruction to all you love!”
Vague Cultural Context - There is some evidence that indicates Hinnom Valley was used by the Pharisees to try and control the people with fear of punishment in the afterlife. The Pharisees debated how long that punishment lasted, who would be punished, and whether or not it ended in reconciliation for most everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, except the most wicked of humanity who would be tormented in Hinnom Valley for up to 12 months and then annihilated or possibly suffer longer. To my knowledge the Pharisees did not have a unified doctrine concerning the punishment of sin in the afterlife, much like the church today. But considering Jesus’ attitude towards the Pharisees and repeated denunciation of their attitudes, practices, and doctrine, to me it doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would have picked out this one doctrine to affirm. However, Mark 9:49 does seem to link Jesus’ warning of Hinnom Valley 9:42-48 with purification, purging by fire in 9:49 and says such is for “everyone”. And of course, scripture elsewhere links judgment with purification, burning up of what is worthless and purification of what is of value.
I believe that Jesus purposefully did not spell out the meaning of His metaphorical use of Hinnom Valley; rather He intended it to have multiple meanings, warning people of the devestation of sin. If we, whether believers or not, give our lives over to sin it will result in our lives being trashed, bringing death and destruction to ourselves and those we love, and we will suffer when we are judged by God! So Repent, love God and love people! If I ordered them in solidity though it would be the historical context first, geographical context second, and the cultural context third.
Sadly, by misinterpreting these passages as Hell/ECT (even modern translations persist in this blatant error), the church’s tradition has nullified their power to call anyone to repentance. Believers say, well, they don’t apply to me because I’m saved; and unbelievers don’t care what they say. It’s only used by believers to denounce unbelievers and tell them they are going to Hell, that or used by believers to call into question the salvation of others who don’t act the way they think they should.
Well, I’ll get off my soap box now.
Here here Sherman
Note to Wormwood and anyone interested in the question of Rabbinical teaching about the World to Come - I’ve posted something about this on the Articels thread.
Hey there, sorry for the late reply. I had my rebuttal completely typed out last night and I accidentally closed the page. Huge bummer.
Primarily, let’s keep debating one-on-one centrally - but I’d love people to throw their thoughts in and wrestle with those in and through our debating. I’ll respond to as many as I can; you can respond to as many as you like. No worries either way.
So, I’ll respond to your arguments:
Now the bits about “reconciling all things/the world/etc.” are a tad harder to argue against. They are, however, very few. In light of the many passages describing the resurrection of the unjust as destructive and final (2 Thes. 1:9; Rev. 20:14-15; Dan. 12:2; etc.), it seems much more responsible to interpret those rare “all things” passages in light of what the NT is abundantly clear on about judgment. From an annihilationist perspective, “all things” and “the world” are completely restored - simply after the wicked are destroyed.
For what its worth also, UR had no Christian backing until the 3rd century. I’m aware that Clement and Origen of Alexandria advocated Apokatastasis, but they were 1. enormously influenced by pagan Greek philosophy when crafting this idea and 2. largely disregarded as heretics. Plus, 3 centuries is quite a while for such a big idea as UR to never get out there - if it really was what Paul was getting at.
With that in mind, I would affirm everything about the wages of sin being death that you said. But what makes you think, biblically, that somehow the second death isn’t final?
Thanks so much,
Chris
Oh, I failed to note that under the Historical Context, Hinnom Valley speaking of the 1st destruction of Jerusalem, was also likely used by Jesus and Matthew to highlight the coming 2nd destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Matthew likely wrote his Gospel just a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Recalling Jesus’ forthright warnings concerning the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and seeing the increasing tension between the Jews and the Romans, Jesus’ warnings would have been a very real tangible threat that Matthew could see coming imminently! And thus he quotes Jesus warnings concerning Hinnom Valley several times in his Gospel, 4 different direct statements but several allusions to Hinnom Valley. Whereas Mark and Luke only quote Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley once each; and John does not quote Jesus even once warning of being cast into Hinnom Valley! I think this is likely the Primary (not Sole) meaning that Matthew intended highlight in quoting Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. But of course, I could be wrong because neither Jesus nor Matthew explains specifically what He/they mean in the warning of Hinnom Valley.
Acts 20:27 tells us that Paul taught us all what God wants us to know, but you will never find Paul warning the gentiles about Gehenna Fire let alone a place called hell. So I agree that the warnings of Gehenna as well as other parables such as “The rich man and Lazarus” were meant only for the Jews.
Yes, it is Paul that is the predominant witness of UR in scripture. Of course, Paul wrote most of the NT and laid the doctrinal foundation for the Gentile Church. So it only makes sense that people appeal to his writings to support whatever doctrine they believe in. And to me it seems that UR was a foundational concept for Paul, a foundational concept/vision that helps us to understand his writings. This is the reason He specifically affirms UR in Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20 and quotes in Rom. 14 and Phil. 2 Isaiah as affirming UR, and it is the reason that he doesn’t warn repeatedly of people being annihilated or cast into ECT.
Concerning the number of references to UR, I agree that there are only a few that specifically affirm such, but there are many that reference such in general. The ones that are to me the strongest affirmations of UR are Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20, though the “every knee bowing” passages are substantial as well. And let’s not forget that “all are justified freely by his grace” Rom. 3:24 or that “all will be made alive” 1 Cor. 15:22. Oh, and how people dismiss Paul’s vision of God in the end bringing “unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” Eph. 1:10, I don’t know. And it is because Jesus died for “all” 2 Cor. 5:14 that He’s given us the ministry of reconciliation, because in Jesus God was reconciling "the world to himself, not counting their (everyone’s) sins against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5:19! And let’s not forget the “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all” Rom. 11:32. And who would want to limit the atonement when scripture affirms that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all” 1 Tim. 2:6, and is “the Savior of all” 1 Tim. 4:10.
So UR certainly seems to be a major, even foundational theme for Paul, who laid the doctrinal foundation for the Gentile church. Should we dismiss these statements as “few” or inconsequential? I think not. In fact, they have filled me with faith in Jesus not only for the salvation of others, but even for my salvation. And I figure, like Paul, if Jesus can save me, He can save everyone for I like Paul was buried, dead in my religious hypocricy (the most deceptive and hardening of all evil) and yet Jesus raised me to life!
Of course, Paul is not alone in his affirmation of UR; John too seems to affirm such in His gospel. In John, Jesus is “the true light that gives light to every man” 1:9, the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (the kosmos)” 1:29. “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved!” 3:17. And of course John quotes Jesus saying that “when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself” 12:32! And John in his letter affirms that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world 1 Jn. 2.2! And in his apocalypse, John sees “everything in heaven and earth, under the earth, in the sea and all that is in them” worshipping Jesus, Rev. 5:13. And then after the nations have fought God, taken the mark of the beast, and drunk of God’s wrath, Jerusalem stands with open gates to receive them and their due honor to God, and the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations!
So it seems to me that Paul and John both have a tremendous revelation of the Universal Reconciliation of all creation, especially all humanity! And why? Because they both had a tremendous revelation of the Love of God! God sovereignly saved Paul though he was hell-bent on destruction of the church. And John had the privaledge of living long in the love of God, living with Mary Jesus’ mother, and being Jesus’ closest disciple/friend.
To me, these passages and their context are too numerous and explicit to dismiss. Rather, in them I find precious promises of reconciliation, justification, God making all things right!
Oh, I assumed incorrectly that you were going to affirm ECT. I too, if not for the many passages that affirm UR would be a conditionalist and believe the unsaved were annihilated.
Alrighty, let me try to deal with each of the verses you mentioned. I mentioned this at the beginning, but I’ll reiterate it: my goal in this debate isn’t to prove annihilationism as much as it is to disprove universalism. I’m a hopeful universalist myself, but I want to square off honestly with myself the doubts and concerns I see with it biblically. I may end up playing the negative more than the positive. Does this bother you? If so, I’m more than willing to switch it up a bit and be pro-annihilationism or something like that.
**
You say Paul “specifically affirms UR” in Rom. 5:18. Romans 5:18, if you’re looking to find UR support, seems obvious and clear. But what if we look at it as a part of the letter to the Romans as a whole? It gets less clear.
Romans is a letter about Jews and Gentiles. Paul weaves in justification, faith, works, salvation, Israel, church, and anything else he can apply to the conversation - but at the core, it’s about Jews and Gentiles. “How should Christian Gentiles look on and act toward non-faithful Jews? What about God’s covenant with Israel? What are the implications of Christ being Lord over this earth?” These are the questions Paul’s driving at. With this in mind, especially following Romans 4 - which is about the faith that unites Jew and Gentile alike - it seems far more likely that Rom. 5:18 is dealing with all *kinds *of people than every individual soul God ever created. You also mentioned Rom. 11:32; I would give the same answer. I can’t imagine reading Romans 9-11 as a whole and coming out saying that Rom 11:32 has anything to do with the salvation of every soul who ever lived. Romans 9-11 is about God’s covenant with Israel. Israel has been cast aside for a season until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. This isn’t even salvific language - Paul’s simply talking about who ‘God’s people’ are (in this life, in this world). So yes, God has redeemed Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy. Israel will eventually come back into the new covenant in some sense. But to say that “all” applies to each individual who ever lived, and even that it has something to do with some kind of postmortem purification is just a huge leap. Paul’s talking about the covenant faithfulness of God to different nations and people groups.
2. “Every knee shall bow?” Rom. 14, Phil. 2, and Isaiah 45
With this in mind, take a look at Romans 14 prior to the UR proof text you mentioned (these are verses leading up to the Isaiah 45 quotation):
"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God… You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat."
Again, this is about ethnic practices among Jews and Gentiles! Keeping sabbath, eating kosher, etc. etc. He’s answering questions about what it means to be among the people of God here and now. He’s apparently specifically reacting to arrogant Gentiles who are scoffing at law-practicing Jews - and why? Because “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.”
Not surprisingly, Paul’s addressing the same sort of thing in Philippians 2 prior to the Isaiah 45 quotation! The church that Philippians was written to was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Paul was stressing unity in Christ to them:
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Unity, unity, unity. That was Paul’s message. So, now that we’ve covered the contexts of Rom 14 and Phil 2, let’s look at the passage they quote - Isaiah 45:
*
Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.*
Well, this sounds promising for UR proponents. But what about the context of this quote? what’s the chapter addressing as a whole? It’s about Gentile, pagan nations coming before God alongside Israel:
"The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush,[c]
and those tall Sabeans—
they will come over to you
and will be yours;
they will trudge behind you,
coming over to you in chains.
They will bow down before you
and plead with you, saying,
‘Surely God is with you, and there is no other;
there is no other god.’”
Read Isaiah 45 in its entirety. It’s promising that there will come (maybe it has already?) a day when these various nations and people groups at odds with Israel will acknowledge that there is no God but Yahweh. However, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the individual salvation of anybody’s soul. It is about the international, worldwide vindication of Israel’s God. With this in mind, it makes sense that Paul would quote it twice when talking about people from different groups and nations uniting under this exalted Christ. But this is worlds away from the UR interpretation you’re suggesting.
3. Misc., fast responses to the rest of your verses quoted
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
First, he’s only talking about bodily resurrection - which will come to both the saved and unsaved (Daniel 12:2). However, it seems that perhaps he’s only talking about the resurrection unto life here: if he’s specifically addressing a sort of salvific resurrection, he’s only talking about “those who belong to” Christ.
Passages like Eph. 1 and Rev. 5 could come after annihilation of the wicked. “All things” can be reconciled *after *nothing evil is allowed to exist. Why not? There were a handful of your quotes that would fall into this answer.
I mentioned already that the passages dealing with “the world” are tougher to debate against, but that it makes far more sense to interpret them in light of the evidence opposing UR - not the other way around. “The world” was often used biblically to mean less than the actual world, though. Biblical writers constantly used hyperboles. It also could likely refer to all the nations of the world, since biblical language is usually national by nature.
I’m afraid I’m out of time, but I got through most of your citations. Thoughts?
Thanks so much,
Chris
Doesn’t bother me at all. Every debate must have a “Devil’s Advocate”. 
I don’t see it as a huge leap at all. Instead, I see UR as foundational to understanding Paul’s message in Romans. All are saved by grace, and the only way to participate in the kingdom of God, the present reality of this grace and love is through having faith in Jesus. All have sinned 3.23, and God has grace on all through the sacrifice of Christ 3.26. Having faith in Christ who has justified all, justifies us now. Salvation is wholly based on what Jesus did, not on our faith, but on what He did for us all. And God’s sovereignty can only be understood in light of his love for all. Salvation has always been based in grace. And the sovereignty of God and very limited autonomy of man can only be understood in the light of the love of God for all humanity. And so Rom. 11 affirms that God has mercy on all, and Rom. 14 affirms that every knee shall bow and worship God.
Concerning Rom.5.18 specifically, I don’t see how from the context anyone can say Paul is speaking of “all kinds” of people and not every person. Because the sin of Adam, all people are subject to death, even those who have never sinned like babies or Jesus - every individual. And yet the sacrifice of Christ is greater for it brings justification (being made right) and life to every person! In order to understand this as “all kinds of people” one must impose that understanding upon the context; it doesn’t come from the context. And the reason Israel was chosen was for the blessing of all, not for the exclusion of non-Jews. Paul is calling people to have faith in the God who loves everyone, individually and corporately, Jew and Gentile alike - God who is sovereign over the affairs of men.
I agree, the context is talking about unity, the unity we find in realizing that God is the God of all, not just the God of the Jews, that God loves all, not just the Jews, that God saves all by grace, not just the Jews, that even Abraham was justified by grace through faith and so shall we. This unity flows out of humility recognizing that none of us can save ourselves but it is only the grace of God that saves us. And I know of no greater call to unity than UR! God ultimately reconciles us all, so let’s be about the ministry of reconciliation. God loves all, so let’s love one another. God’s love does not fail to save anyone, so let’s follow the way of God’s love in relating to one another. And if you are privaledged to participate in the kingdom now, it’s not just for you, but it’s part of God’s love for all humanity. And if others are hardened now, it’s ultimately for the good of all.
I agree that Isaiah was seeing a day when all nations would acknowledge there is no other God but Yahweh, the God of the Jews. But nations are made up of individuals. If the whole nation recognized such, then every individual did as well. Of course though, Paul did not necessarily follow standard exegetical principles in interpreting scripture; rather, he tended to interpret things prophetically, as did the others of his day, hearing God speak to them through scripture and reveal to them truth that the original authors might not have even seen in their own writings. Paul saw every tongue worshipping, every knee bowing in reverent honor, everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. It’s like Paul can’t make it universal enough to express the vision he has in his heart!
Well, I had better go for now. I’ll try and come back later.
Blessings,
Sherman
Let’s look at more of the context of 1 Cor. 15.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
There is much more to “life” than existance! Ultimately all shall be made alive in Christ! And Jesus will reign until He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power that is set against Him. How are enemies overcome except through reconciliation? As long as an enemy remains an enemy they are not overcome! How is evil overcome? By more evil or by good? How is darkness overcome except by light! How is death overcome, except by life! And the ultimate goal is “so that God may be all in all!” What a beautiful passage. God will be all in your life, my life, in everyone’s life! All in All!
Now to you it might make more sense to interpret the UR passages in the shadow of death and annihilation, but to me they seem to be much more clear in the light of life in and through the sacrifice of Christ.
I’m curious Chris, believing in annihilation which do you limit, the scope or effect of the sacrifice of Christ? And which do you limit, the sovereignty or the love of God? To me it seems that Paul limits neither the scope or the effect of the atonement, and neither the sovereignty or the love of God. God is sovereign over all nations and all individuals. He not only knows the plans he has for nations, but the plans He has for us individually. And God not only loves groups of people, but He loves everyone, each individual. Shoot, God even counts the hairs on one’s head. Of course, that’s easy on me! 
A primary message of the New Testament is that God is not only the God of the Jews, but that God is the God of all nations and every individual, and that relationship with God is not only, even primarily a national right or privaledge but it is an individual right and privaledge!
Concerning UR passages being hyperbole, I’d agree with you if they were written in hyperbole like many, if not most of the judgment passages; but they are not. Jesus did not just come to save some, but to save the whole world. He did not come to just reconcile some of creation, but all of creation. That is a statement of purpose, intent, a goal, not just wishful thinking.
And I love Col. 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19** For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.**
Everything was created by and for God. Everything exists by Him and through Him and for Him. God intends to reconcile all things to himself. And note that reconcile recognizes the current adversarial relationship. But His will is to reconcile everthing in heaven, and on earth, everthing visible and invisible, all powers and authorities! How are enemies overcome, except by reconciliation. To kill or annihilate an enemy is not to overcome them for they remain an enemy forever, especially if we “love our enemies” like God does.
Chris, I just don’t see how people dismiss such passages as hyperbole or poetry or wishful thinking! It’s the passages concerning judgment and punishment of sin that are typically couched in metaphor, hyperbole, parable, and even apocalyptic literature. But these UR passages are straight-forward affirmations of faith and vision, not hyperbole, metaphor, or parable.
I’m curious though… how do you interpret Romans 9-11? and would you agree that 9-11 are at the core of the letter’s message? I agree with almost everything you’re saying about grace, love, salvation, faith etc. I’m just not sure that you’re totally grasping the bigger messages of Romans. I’d encourage you to skim this if you ever have the chance, but it is pretty lengthy: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf
My question for you would be: If UR is foundational to understanding Romans, why is it so scarcely mentioned? (Assuming 5, 11, and 14 are really getting at that. What you’re saying is coherent and makes sense, but you’re not really providing much exegetical reasoning to argue that 14 or 11 have anything to do with UR. Would you consider proving to me contextually that 11 and 14 make sense with a UR interpretation? (Both in context with the verses preceding it and the letter as a whole). I’m more open to 5 simply because I’m not as familiar with its context in the letter. I’m planning on looking into that.
Like I said, I’m admittedly not as familiar with the context of this passage. I’m skeptical, but I’ll leave it alone for now for the sake of better responding to the others.
I think I sense a bit of a sleight-of-hand argument here. Let me try to work out what I think you’re saying:
See the leap there? Yes, UR is one viable option that could bring unity between Jews and Gentiles. But… so could an endless number of other things. The law of liberty unites Jew and Gentiles; eating at the same table unites Jew and Gentile; on and on. You’re more or less using this logical leap to read UR into any text about unity. Exegetically, UR just doesn’t seem to work well in Romans 14 or Philippians 2, much less in Isaiah 45. If UR is ‘foundational’ to these passages, then why isn’t it even remotely specified? Can you contextually prove to me that these passages even have anything to do with postmortem salvation at all? I’m pretty well convinced that they are entirely and only about who the people of God are, here and now. They are dealing with how Jews and Gentiles in Rome should behave together and live and eat and drink and worship together.
Yes, nations are made up of individuals - but the Bible doesn’t usually talk about them that way. Sodom is regarded as entirely evil to God, even with the righteous Lot and his family in it. Israel is talked about countless times in the prophets as wicked, adulterous, and evil - even when a righteous remnant remains.
Nations are not talked about as ‘every individual inside a nation’ biblically. They’re talked about in more of a ‘general consensus of the people inside them’ way.
Now, that last bit strikes me as a bit dangerous. You’re more or less suggesting that we read Paul’s alleged UR in Rom. 14 or Phil. 2 into the very text he’s quoting. I would suggest that this is completely backwards. I’ve already extensively covered why I think UR is a poor interpretation of these 2 passages. Paul was actually very, very careful about his OT references. It is absolutely critical to understand the entire passage out of which Paul quotes something (which is why I brought up the whole of Isaiah 45). Yes, sometimes (and very rarely) he applies a further meaning - but only when his own context is absolutely clear about it.
If UR is at the heart of what Paul’s getting at in both Phil. 2 and Rom. 14, why does neither passage even touch upon salvation? and why would he throw in an Isaiah quote that didn’t have anything to do with salvation to prove his point?
Under my interpretation, Phil. 2, Rom. 14, and Isaiah 45 all have the same basic message and the context surrounding Paul’s writing makes sense. I’m just feeling that you’re reading too much ‘salvation’ into Paul’s writing. He arguably spent more time addressing community and unity than he ever did salvation - especially in a postmortem sense.