The Evangelical Universalist Forum

For I could wish that I myself were accursed

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Consider Romans 9:1-5.

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul’s writing is often used to support Universalism. However, these verses, specifically “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart” and “For I could wish that I myself were accursed,” seem to suggest that being accursed has dire–perhaps irreparable–consequences. I can think of ways to reconcile these verses with Universalism, but at face value, these verses seem to leave few, if any, convincing ways to do so.

How would you reconcile these verses in light of Universalism?

#2

Hi Lancia
I’m not sure why you think that the curse or separation has to be permanent nor do I see any implication of such permanence in the text. For me, the problem you have addressed is solved if we continue with Paul’s writings through chapters 9,10 and 11.

Doesn’t Paul explain more about this same curse in the following verses and are you still left thinking that these thoughts of Paul are difficult to reconcile with universalism? For me, the opposite is true:

Rom 11:8 As the scripture says, “God made their minds and hearts dull; to this very day they cannot see or hear.”
Rom 11:9 And David says, “May they be caught and trapped at their feasts; may they fall, may they be punished!
Rom 11:10 May their eyes be blinded so that they cannot see; and make them bend under their troubles at all times.”
Rom 11:11 I ask, then: When the Jews stumbled, did they fall to their ruin? By no means! Because they sinned, salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make the Jews jealous of them.
Rom 11:12 The sin of the Jews brought rich blessings to the world, and their spiritual poverty brought rich blessings to the Gentiles. Then, how much greater the blessings will be when the complete number of Jews is included!

#3

^^ Quite so. I grieve when those I love are still outside the yard of the home. I feel like I would even rather die the death than that my most beloved would be lost. But that doesn’t mean I have no hope in God to bring all the lost sheep home, nor that the one for whom I would rather die the death has stumbled so as to fall: “MAY IT NEVER BE!”

#4

I don’t see any support for or even implication of either Infernalism or Annihilationism in this passage. Paul is speaking rhetorically of his passionate love for his fellow Jews. To be “accursed” is to be “separated from Christ”. Paul is simply saying that he loves his fellow Jews so much that 1) if he could and 2)if it would do any good he’d gladly trade places with them. And remember, just prior to this Paul is rejoicing in the love of God revealed in Christ and the fact that nothing can separate us from God’s love. So to read into this passage either ECT or Annihilation is, well, reading it into the passage, eisegesis, not exegesis.

#5

Yes, these verses indeed show why Paul’s writings seem to support Universalism. When Romans 9:1-5 is interpreted with these other verses in mind, there is no problem. Very good!

#6

Yes, so one should interpret Romans 9:1-5 in the context of other Scripture. That makes sense. Thanks.

#7

For that matter, not even counting things he says in subsequent chapters, Paul INSTANTLY goes on to say that his fellow-countrymen about whom he has unceasing grief in his heart still have the promises of the covenants and the adoption as sons. And this is despite them not being Israel spiritually yet, only Israel by physical descent: because it isn’t by (mere) physical descent by which people are children of Abraham, but by the promise of the Abrahamic covenant – yet the Son Who stands for Abraham in making the covenant of the promise with the Father, that Abraham’s children through Isaac shall number ridiculously large and shall all be brought to righteousness and so all the nations of the world shall be blessed? He descends physically through Isaac not through Ishmael, and through Jacob not Esau. But God has mercy and compassion on whomever He chooses without merit or demerit for that matter, even if He hardens their heart for a time as with Pharaoh whom God promised to raise up for leading the nations to worship God. (Probably referring to rabbinic theories about why this promise seems to fail when Pharaoh dies soon afterward: it didn’t fail, God raised him up from death on one or the other side of the Sea, and then he did this or that which led people to worship God.)

After which Paul immediately cites one or more of the places where God promises to restore Israel after punishing her because He still loves her, and rebukes those who think God has abandoned Israel forever to punishment. And so on.

Soooo… yeah, not a hopeless punishment situation, much less not a situation where some are elected to be saved from sin and God chooses not to elect others to be saved from sin. But some are elected to be vessels of mercy, i.e. for pouring out mercy, just like others are elected to be vessels for pouring out destruction and yet God expressly has {makrothemia} for them: the term which Calvinists recognize to be the intention of God to save sinners from sin, which we had better not despise for God shall certainly succeed in doing so!

(Ironically, though quite properly, they cite 2 Peter among other places for that, where Arminians just as properly cite testimony nearby that God intends everyone to be saved from sin.)

#8

Yes, Paul seems to be doing what Jesus advises us to do: love your neighbor as you love yourself. In fact, Paul seems to be going beyond that kind of love, to the point of altruism, which, by definition, comes at a cost to oneself.

Reading ECT or annihilation into the passage comes from reading it in isolation, i.e., without an eye towards the other of Paul’s passages that support Universalism.

#9

How can one establish on the basis of such instantly presented verses that having “the promises of the covenants and the adoption as sons” applies to the post-mortem world, not just to the present world?

#10

Because the promise of the covenant, and the adoption as sons, deal with the post-mortem world as much as the present world. Or rather it’s about being finally saved from sin and into always doing righteousness eventually ever afterward; pre-mortem and post-mortem categories are secondarily irrelevant to that.

The only people who would be in any position to dispute this with any distant amount of coherency would be the hard-corps Arminians who think that not only can a person be grafted out of the vine but we ought to expect God can’t or won’t graft them back in again – exactly opposite of what Paul warns his readers about a few chapters later! (Slightly paraphrased: “Don’t despise those currently grafted out of the vine, because if God can graft you in He can graft them back in, too; and if He grafts them out, despite being natural to the vine, for being against the idea of those outside the vine being grafted in, do you think God is going to spare you for being against that idea, too??”)

Not one chapter previously, Paul is talking about salvation in Christ and its connection to us being adopted as sons thanks to the Spirit – though he does qualify it on the ground of us sharing the suffering of Christ. The cultural context would be that if the head of a household judges his children to have become irresponsible after he has given them the inheritance of working in the family name, he can disavow them and return them to the status of slaves even though they don’t stop being his children – and even though the good father would keep acting (even if that requires punishment) to bring them to being responsible children again and so back into “enjoying the inheritance” (as the concept is often expressed in the Gospels).

#11

Also, Paul in his subsequent discussion references those who died stumbling long ago in parallel with those who are stumbling now; so if he still has hope for them, that has to be a post-mortem fulfillment of the promise of the covenant and the adoption as sons.

#12

I see how the promise of the covenant and the adoption as sons can deal with the post-mortem world as much as with the present world. But I’m having trouble seeing that Paul says or implies in this chapter that those two things can result from actions taken by a person in the post-mortem world.

#13

That might be because Paul is talking a lot about God’s choice to save sinners from sin, and how God is more faithful at that than sinners are (thank God). :wink:

Paul does talk about the importance of human cooperation, too, but that isn’t his main theme. Human cooperation fails. God’s salvific purpose doesn’t.

As for the implication: if Paul has hope in God for rebel Israel who died in their sins, that they haven’t stumbled so as to fall (therefore neither can the rebel Israel of his day), then post-mortem salvation from sin is the only logical implication possible.

One of the OT prophets he’s referencing soon afterward with the potter/clay/answer-back-to-God rebuke, puts it very colorfully (I forget which one, I’d have to check my notes). God can reform the pot (referring to rebel Israel) on the wheel, like a human potter can; but even if God shatters the pot on the ground so that it cannot even hold a bit of water in a fragment anymore (which He says He’s going to have to do), then unlike a human potter He can and will still remake the pot.

God doesn’t explicitly say through the prophet “with mankind this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”, but it’s the same idea in connection to salvation from sin.

#14

OK. Thanks for the explanation.

#15

I’m inclined to think Sherman’s thoughts are extremely plausible.

It could also be that Paul had in mind the tension and tribulation of the ages in which he wrote, AD30-70… having the overlapping and concurrent OC / NC ages in view; where the OC age was winding down while the NC age is burgeoning, as per 2Cor 3:11; Heb 8:13. There were certain prophetic consequences that Paul could see coming and yearns earnestly that as many of his brethren as possible be spared from these cataclysmic times ahead.

#16

Brilliant, Jason!!! Who else could have put it so simply and clearly?!. Are we not fortunate indeed Lancia in being on this Forum to have such clarity in response to our doubts - good on you too to start this thread? !!

Michael in Barcelona

#17

In all honesty, I can ONLY see UR soteriology in that passage

#18

That Paul feels great sorrow and unceasing grief for his kinsmen who have not come to Jesus does not suggest only UR soteriology to me. I understand how this narrative can fit with UR, but I cannot see how it suggests ONLY UR.

#19

I guess it’s because of the context, Lancia. It took me a long time to figure this out, but it’s vital when studying an epistle, to study the whole thing. We have a tendency to forget these are letters, and intended to be understood as a whole. So if I read Romans 9 without having understood, and without keeping in mind Romans 1-8, I may not gain an accurate picture of what Paul means in Romans 9, since that depends on things that have gone before – and it may also be modified and refined by things that come after. In context of the entire epistle, I have to agree with Jonny. I see only UR here, taking into consideration the other things Paul has said and will say, which qualify the passage in question.

#20

I don’t doubt that the entire book of Romans supports UR. But I thought Jonny was referring to the specific passage I quoted, i.e., he said, “that passage.” From that alone, I don’t see unambiguous support for UR. And that’s what my post was all about: the passage I quoted.