Wow, this guy is a hoot! Here’s how the discussion started. His responses are in bold.
Me: I saw that you said that universal salvation is infeasible in light of the original languages of the Bible. Is that still your position?
**Him: yes. that is my position on many issues. without being fluent in the original languages of the bible…ones opinions are only vague shadows of the truth… forturnately for us, God does not require a perfect knowledge to be saved. the only requirement for salvation is a moment of faith in the Lord Jesus. but that moment of faith is required. and Christian Universalists make the error, of not understanding that in the greek NT, the word ‘all’ is never universal. it means all of a certain kind or type. what do u think of that ? **
Me: In the Greek NT, ‘all’ has a wide range of applications. Who do you think is the referent of ‘all’ in Romans 5:12?
Him: ok. we may have to mash this up for a while. but let me put it this way. there are over 125 verses in the NT, that place the requirement of believing or faith upon salvation… it is just not good hermeneutics to pick up one single verse that supports ur postion…and ignor the other 100 plus verses that smash u. if christian unversalism were true…than there would not be any requirement of believing in any bible verse : ) **
Me: I agree with the hermeneutic principle you mention above. However, you are simply incorrect in saying that if universal salvation is true then faith would be unnecessary. My conviction is that every sinner will finally be saved but only through faith in Christ. But let’s take this slowly and carefully.
**Him: just food for thought: one of elements that i believe to be relevant, is koine greek syntax. conditional clauses. volitional clauses. prohibitive clauses. do you know about those things? and i would like to establish a hermeneutical basis for our chat. i approach the bible from the perspective of “literal and grammatical hermeneutics”. although my view does allow for figures of speach, and metaphor, as long as we use greek and hebrew understanding…the syntax of greek and hebrew, as well as their idiom, are alien to an untrained english reader… **
Me: I am by no means an expert in Koine Greek, but I am able to keep my head afloat. But why don’t we just get into it and discuss specific texts. Would you care to begin with Romans 5:12-21?
Him: hey, how are u today? i am great. and yes i would love to start with that passage. as long as we do not try to make it a one shot solution. in proper hermenuetics: scripture must be compared to other scriptures that bear on that subject. and our interpretation of the overall doctrine must line up, with what all the related scriptures teach. the common error of heretics, is not using the whole council of God. they can take any passage or verse, and force any interpretation they want onto it - when they try to avoid using all of the Bible in their final interpretation. do you agree ???
that being said: i view the passage from the lapsarian perspective. because of the meaning of the greek text. i interpret the passage as “that salvation is universally available”. available meaning potential. in greek, the mood and tone of the statement is “indicative”, i will not deny that. But in verse 17, the “d.npm 'oι those” is used. the word means “them or those of a certain class or group”. it in no way shape or form, means “all or every”. period.
furthermore, paul himself in this same book 9.14-23, clearly states that God in His sovereignty - pharoah as an example - has chosen some for glory (heaven), and some for destruction (hell).
furthermore, paul, in the book of romans, continually uses the “catagorical pronoun - 'ημων - us or we” to state that some limited group has recieved justification only because they have believed. or requiring a personal choice in believing, before being justified. romans 5.1-2. this same verse also uses the greek phrase “την προσαγωγην” to demonstrate that we have “access” without any sure promise that we will for sure, obtain righteousness by faith.
so i side with the calvinist/lapsarian view: that salvation is available to all men, but not all men will obtain it, and God even chose some people for Hell… **
Me: You wrote: <<the word means “them or those of a certain class or group”. it in no way shape or form, means “all or every”. period.>>
Are you referring to ‘pas’? In any case, the context of this verse makes it quite plain that those who receive grace and righteousness are those who died in Adam. The parallelistic thrust of the passage makes this painfully obvious (e.g. verse 19).
“furthermore, paul himself in this same book 9.14-23, clearly states that God in His sovereignty - pharoah as an example - has chosen some for glory (heaven), and some for destruction (hell).”
Do not neglect to note that according to Romans 11 (see for example verse 23) the very vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction (cut-off branches) are able to become objects of mercy (able to be grafted in again).
You wrote: “furthermore, paul, in the book of romans, continually uses the “catagorical pronoun - 'ημων - us or we” to state that some limited group has recieved justification only because they have believed. or requiring a personal choice in believing, before being justified. romans 5.1-2. this same verse also uses the greek phrase “την προσαγωγην” to demonstrate that we have “access” without any sure promise that we will for sure, obtain righteousness by faith.”
I agree, and you should be aware that these facts are not at odds with the notion of a final, universal salvation of mankind.
**Him: wow bro…r u for real, or r u just messing with me? that passage does not contain ‘pas’. and in the other one, israel is the branches that were cut off, and the gentile church has been grafted ‘in their stead’…im going in to work now…i will explain later…and how do u just ignor the entire book of revelations, and all it says about the devil, his angels, and all nonbelievers going to hell ??? goodmorning and God bless u : ) **
Me: You wrote: <<<wow bro…r u for real, or r u just messing with me?>>>
No, not messing with you. Why do you ask?
<<<that passage does not contain ‘pas’.>>>
The passage in question, you’ll recall, is Romans 5:12-21. ‘Pas’ is used a number of times in this passage. Verse 17 does not use the word ‘pas’, but the people in view are quite obviously the same ‘all’ that Paul had been talking about up to that point. Or are you disputing that point?
<<<and in the other one, israel is the branches that were cut off, and the gentile church has been grafted ‘in their stead’>>>
Read verse 23 (and 24) again, and this time pay attention. The unbelieving Jews that were cut off can be grafted in again.
<<and how do u just ignor the entire book of revelations, and all it says about the devil, his angels, and all nonbelievers going to hell ???>>
Him: but the point is, that greek pronouns determine the range, the scope, the who, the what…of what it is being said : ) oι is a type, a class, a group - never a ‘universal all’. in order to mean a universal all - it must say ‘παντες oι’. which it does not…so the universalist is in error, beacause he does not truly understand ancient greek…
Him: See brother…u are commiting the “root error”. pas is the root of pantas, and pantes. but in greek, the minor spelling changes called “inflection” change the final meaning. sometimes in dramatic ways… logos means the word…but logon means what the word teaches, etc etc etc…u have formed ur view using roots, without truly understanding the language.
Him: and what i dont like, is that u are just trying to argue with me. again, show me where the word pas is, please…
Him: pas can even sometimes mean “none or not”, the actual inflected form tells this, not the root…
Him: the other real problem with the root method, which is clearly all u know. is that it also disregards “affected meaning”. u have formed ur view using the root, pas, and are are trying to force the “unaffected meaning” onto the passage. **