"Doesn’t the all in Adam correspond to the all in Christ?"

[Alex_Smith]

your article

against Universalism, you"][A EU says, ] Rom 5:18 Doesn’t the all in Adam correspond to the all in Christ?

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

It’s helpful to note that only a few verses before it makes it very clear the scope of the condemnation.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

i.e. all (without exception) have sinned and were standing condemned. However, this means the justification & life is also for the same all (without exception). Most would agree about the life for all (i.e. all are resurrected 1 Cor 15:22) but deny the justification for all

your article

against Universalism, you"]Context from other parts of Romans is important in understanding the broad scope of this verse (Rom 9).I agree, although it’s because I see Romans as adding further support e.g. 11:32

your article

against Universalism, you"]It’s also important to note that if the Apostle Paul was announcing a new theme: ‘universal salvation’, he wouldn’t have introduced it during a tangent about justification and original sin, five chapters into his letter to the Romans.We spent hours thrashing this out on Google+, but obviously you weren’t convinced

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone, who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Seems to be at least Arminianism, although given I think the Bible says everyone will believe, I think Paul is making a statement about “universal salvation”.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Again, this support universal salvation, as it shows that God’s wrath is ultimately against the sin not the sinner.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Wow, a super EU verse (rushes off & tweets it!)

So Paul actually introduced it in chapter one, reinforced it again in chapter 3, which is still very early in a 16 chapter book! Even though it has an early introduction, I actually think the position of a point in a book doesn’t dictate the importance e.g. it’s fairly common for an author to paint a background or build a scenario, before getting to their key point.

[Luke]

I feel we’re covering some the same ground here again but:

It’s important to note local context:
how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:17) [With Moo being more reliable than Talbott here.]

But also context in the rest of Romans:
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. … What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? etc (Rom 9)

Also this comment via Mikey’s blog quoting Michael Jensen should summarise our approach to sections such as Rom 5:12-21 that might appear to be Universalist at first glance:

“Allow Paul to say one thing at a time. That is: when Paul says ‘we
aren’t under law!’ let him be a passionate rhetorician. A coherent but
not systematic thinker. See Romans 5 - Paul sound universalistic, but
if you read him patiently, you see that he isn’t. “

While rejecting as context other verses that clearly can’t mean support Universalism. eg 11:32 because the Apostle Paul doesn’t have the evil King Mananssah in mind, would be aware of the idea of the “remnant” and wouldn’t contradict himself eg 11:17.

So is Universalism a new theme in Romans, well 3:23-24, does bring me up short. But Rom 1:16 can be dismissed fairly easily.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone, who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek.

But as soon as I actually read the context on either side of Romans 3:23-24, it’s quickly evidence Universalism isn’t the intention. Firstly the context is that everyone is sinful, Jew or gentile: Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. (3:9) Secondly you negeleted to mention the end of verse 26, our other piece of context: so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

[Alex_Smith]

It’s important to note local context:
how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:17)

But “those” doesn’t limit overall scope, it could be everyone, or it could be some now, some later. All it does is make it clear that it’s only through Christ.

But also context in the rest of Romans:
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. … What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? etc (Rom 9)

Israel aren’t the only people being saved. “What if” is a question not a statement. Even if it was a statement, just because you’ve been through destruction, doesn’t mean God can’t rebuild a new house on the rubble.

Also this comment via Mikey’s blog quoting Michael Jensen should summarise our approach to sections such as Rom 5:12-21 that might appear to be Universalist at first glance:

Allow Paul to say one thing at a time. That is: when Paul says ‘we aren’t under law!’ let him be a passionate rhetorician. A coherent but not systematic thinker. See Romans 5 - Paul sound universalistic, but if you read him patiently, you see that he isn’t.

I don’t read Mikey’s blog anymore but Michael Jensen’s comment is circular, to say the least. I could just as easily say, Paul might sound like a Calvinist but if you read him patiently you’ll see he’s a universalist.

While rejecting as context other verses that clearly can’t mean support Universalism. eg 11:32

I think this is one of the clearest passages supporting Universalism as all have sinned, all have been consigned to disobedience since Adam.

because the Apostle Paul doesn’t have the evil King Mananssah in mind

Why not, he’s no more a sinner than you or I? If Mananssah had repented just before his death, God would’ve forgiven him, so why not just after his death?

would be aware of the idea of the “remnant” and wouldn’t contradict himself eg 11:17

But having the remnant saved and the non-remnant saved isn’t a contradiction. Even in that verse, it’s showing how salvation is dynamic, people can be excluded for a time and then grafted in later.

So is Universalism a new theme in Romans, well 3:23-24, does bring me up short. But Rom 1:16 can be dismissed fairly easily.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone, who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek.

”who believes” defines the doorway but not how many will go through it. I understand Greek has no punctuation, does that mean the verse may actually be: For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone. Who believes? To the Jew first and also to the Greek.?

But as soon as I actually read the context on either side of Romans 3:23-24, it’s quickly evidence Universalism isn’t the intention. Firstly the context is that everyone is sinful, Jew or Gentile: Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. (3:9)

why do you need the context, as the verse says “all have sinned”?

Secondly you neglected to mention the end of verse 26, our other piece of context: so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Because ”those who” defines the doorway but not how many will go through it.