The Evangelical Universalist Forum

For I could wish that I myself were accursed

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#21

Ah yes, I do see what you mean, Lancia. If you were to take out that passage, all by itself, and separate it from all the rest of Romans and the rest of scripture, then you have a point. This is how “exegesis” is often done in modern churches, and the practice is so very pervasive that it’s hard to even see it. It took me quite a while to realize that my idea of reading the Bible WAS proof-texting, and that it just didn’t work. Imagine if someone were to take a sentence here and there from all the things you’ve written on the internet. What sort of person would emerge as a picture of you? I guess it would depend on what was cut and pasted, and what was combined, and whether the person doing the cutting and pasting of your words even knew you, or had a motivation to present you as you truly are. Or maybe, had a motivation to present you as he “needed” you to be in order to prove a hypothesis he fervently believed.

I’ve worked hard to stop doing that kind of exegesis because I realize now that it CAN’T yield an accurate and unbiased picture of what the scriptures are truly intended to communicate to us. Hopefully I’ve got it down to a minimum at least, but there are many verses ripped bleeding and quivering and shapeless from the text, only to be stacked one upon another to build a monstrosity that God never meant by the words of the Holy Scriptures. So to me, I guess, what the verses may sound like in isolation is irrelevant until I put them in their true context and see how they look when surrounded by the rest of the rightful elements of the painting.

For example, what does this look like to you? What does it mean?

Nothing, I’m guessing. I named the file descriptively (and am too lazy to change it just now), but if it weren’t for that, you’d think it was an abstract, and not a particularly good one.
I’m going to skip some spaces now, and if you scroll down, you can see what the picture really means.

Here is the context – just left-click over the image to see it all at once. Do you see how my little fragment above can have no true meaning until you know the rest of the picture?

jackandjillsm.JPG1000×1000 1.45 MB

#22

That is very neat Cindy, exactly what I have been trying to convey toa Jehova Witness friend of mine. We meet together regularly for a coffee Tuesdays and he allways takes texts, usually a single verse and this seems to be the way they teach without reading the whole passage, chapter. If there is a reference to “back-up” in other parts of the Bible to a certain text, then again the same happens. He will refer to a specific verse for support. WE have an interesting too and fro from which we have both become more understanding of each others sometimes very different understanding of the Bible!! It shows to me the benefits of dialogue between persons of very different religious background!
I shall use your post tomorrow with my JW friend!!

Love from Barcelona,
Michael

#23

I certainly don’t blame people who only see 9:1-3 and stop there, for not being able to see any hope of universal reconciliation in Paul’s grief testimony (or any hope for those he grieves over at all, much less hope for the salvation of all sinners from sin).

#24

Yes, isn’t it deliciously ironic that Universalists, who are so often accused of taking biblical words out of context, are here defending context as a way to clarify a passage that on the surface appears to speak against Universalism?

This experience has been an eye-opener for me because I have been the target of such anti-Universalist sentiment on the Reasonable Faith Forum—sentiment that almost always devolves into accusations of taking things out of context.

#25

Yeah, I’ve commented there before a few times, and it doesn’t seem to matter how much context I invoke: either I’m taking things out of context anyway, or I’m using my “human reason” by appealing to the context. :unamused:

Any stick is good enough yo.

Edited to add: wait, no sorry, I meant the Christian Coalition site. RF is William Lane Craig’s place; I know about it but I don’t think I’ve commented there before.