A few months ago I finished a 30 page exegetical examination of the four major Pauline passages used to defend and argue for a universal salvation: 1 Cor 15:22, Rom 5:18-19, Phil 2:10-11, and Col 1:20. The paper has 136 footnotes and nearly fifty sources, making for what I believe to be a fairly thorough analysis.
In light of the recent conversations swirling around the internet, not to mention my own blog, regarding universalism, I thought I would post the pieces of this examination for the next 2 weeks. I tried to do this in March, but then took a blogging break for lent.
While I’ll post a more thorough introduction, here is my basic thesis: In the end, surveying these Christian universalism passages will show how Christian universalists make these passages say and do things that Paul never intended—resulting in bad exegesis and worse theology—because there simply is no Pauline universal salvation.
Here’s the rundown on what’s to come:
Post Series
0—Introduction
1—On 1 Corinthians 15:22
2—On Romans 5:18-19
3—On Philippians 2:10-11
4—On Colossians 1:20
5— Conclusion
Just to be clear: this is an academic treatment of this discussion that interacts with other biblical theologians. I am NOT interacting with Bell, McLaren, etc…I’ll do that later. Here I want to interact with the primary sources who fight for and against a Pauline universal salvation. I hope you join along and add your own thoughts over the next few weeks as we examine and wrestle with the four dominant Pauline universalism passages.
No Chris. As I said this is an exegetical paper, not a theological one. As such my primary sources are the Text, commentaries, lexicons, and dictionaries.
FWI – separating exegesis and theology in this manner is a deeply flawed modern academic tendency. Theological interpretation, as you and I have spoken about before, rejects this very notion.
This is your own opinion from your own theological methodology…as you said Theological interpretation.
I value both biblical exegesis and historical theology. FOR THIS PAPER which is part of a Pauline Exegesis class I worked through these passages exegetically. That was the point of the paper. A different point of a different paper could have worked through them theologically or in tandem. I didn't.
Hmm — I said nothing of methodology and I am suggesting that the very notion of biblical exegesis and theological interpretation should not be separate ones. Thus, the flaw I was suggesting is not with YOU but with our modern academic structure.
It seems to me to be somewhat illogical to assume that since one is writing an exegesis paper that they are somehow separated from theology. Theological interpretation is just regaining exegesis FOR the church, not for a purely academic pursuit. And in some sense, if we're suggesting that exegesis gets in the way of theology, haven't we just swung the pendulum to the other extreme?
Two things should be noted: (1) Theo Interp, just recognizes some of the limitations of the historical method, but doesn't throw them out, it puts them in their proper place. (2) the earliest 'movers and shakers' of the early church were exegetes, top notch ones at that. They knew Greek Rhetoric, they knew Koine Greek, some of them new Hebrew, and def a little bit of latin. And they brought all of these to bear on their interpretation, and brought that exegesis to the service/for the service of the church.
I think someone would have a hard time finding anyone in the early church or reformation that would play off hard exegetical work from theologizing 🙂 Most theologians wrote commentaries, thus holding together the tension.
A final example may be helpful, we can't have Calvin's institutes apart from his commentaries, nor can we have his commentaries apart from his institutes, the two work in tandem as should exegesis and theology.
Alas my two cents…although from what I wrote, I'd want at least a nickle 🙂
Jason, your first sentence is exactly my point, I think it is illogical to assume that since one is writing an exegesis paper that they are somehow separated from theology. I don't think you can our should. Your second, I disagree. Theo interp is not just about regaining exegesis FOR the church, that's only one small part of it. And as far as the pendulum swinging to the other extreme — I think I like where it is swinging. Though I agree with almost everything you said here 🙂
Can you explain how you disagree with my second point? How is Theo Interp not about bringing exegesis back to the church?
The pendulum thing, is my exact point, i think if it swings to far that way, that you will leave behind what the fathers of the church have done for centuries. I dont think Origen, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Irenaues, would be comfortable with leaving exegesis, and when it comes down to it you can't have theology apart from exegesis. Theology is built on our interpretation of texts.
With you (apparently), I do not think that the idea of Universal Salvation can be defended from these passages, though I am interested in your research. But, the notion of re-examining the traditional Christian teachings about Heaven & Hell , etc. in the light of contemporary issues also is urgently needed. Re-examination of the Biblical support for the traditional teachings about Hell would also be a part of this agenda. Just saying….
Just letting you know, I mentioned you here: "Heaven, Hell, Bell & Heresy" http://nblo.gs/fdPar
Cool! Thanks for the mention…and yes: I'm not sure I would classify myself with the neo-Calvinist writers 🙂
OK. I changed it. It's your current Heresy Hunter persona that influenced me. (Though, for the record, I agree that if all our Emergent theologians have to offer us is warmed-over Classical Liberalism they are offering nothing worth having.) You are now in a separate paragraph. My personal problem is that I'm so allergic to the Young, Restless & Reformed that I usually discount them entirely — even when I shouldn't!
My “current heresy hunter persona”? Is that the way I come across? YIKES! I'll need to watch that.Yeah I understand the allergic reaction to YRR. I have that, too. I assure you I am NOT reformed :)Again, thanks for the mention…
Interesting how I'm not the only one to suggest Jeremy is Reformed — I don't think you should be so dismissive of this Jeremy, Reformed in the broadest sense can mean Protestant and you said you were that — I do trust you when you say you are not Reformed in the double predestination sense. I think Craig is getting at something here though, the posture is quite similar to the YRR, even if the theology is different. This is not an attack on you just something to think about. I can deal with different theologies, but its the posture that sets me off. For example, your note regarding being something like Machen, wow, scary! I understand you want to be clear and concise, but I get nasty vibes from his writing.
Well I certainly want to watch my posture…but my experience has been when thinkers who are sympathetic to Emergent or Emergent thinkers are challenged the name calling ensues: i.e. I am insecure, I am a hater, I am a heresy hunter, I am a despiser. Come on!
I think it is way easier to dismiss someone through ad hominems than actually deal with the arguments and ideas. And now because someone in GR is actually—God forbid!—challenging Rob Bells ideas I am Reformed or I have a Reformed posture. What exactly does that even mean?
It seems as though there is zero to no room to deal with Rob Bell's ideas without being labeled a hater or someone being "set off." That's sad.
I don't think you are a hater. I just don't buy the method of stacking up ones theology / exegesis or whatever along-side historic orthodox Christianity — because (I think) historic orthodox Christianity is understood differently by different people.
As far as being sympathetic to emergent thinking – I want to be sympathetic to all types of thinking.
As far as Rob Bell, I just don't think you get what he's up to. You have placed him in the same room with Pagit and Jones — I just don't buy that.
A quick read through church history will show that the church fathers didn't really have a problem with 'labeling' things as they saw them. This seems to kinda be standard throughout the history of the church.
I guess the key question then is: "what makes one un-orthodox?" Or "is it possible that one's different understanding can be so different that it is no longer considered Christian?"
I guess what I'm saying is that if we adopt, "historic orthodox Christianity is understood differently by different people," can we even define orthodoxy then? If we can, how do we do that?
Great Question — that is exactly where we should start — though I'm not sure it is very easy to define. See the bit I just wrote on Salvation in Jeremy's next blog post.
well i'd still like to see what you think about 'what is orthodoxy' and what qualifies as outside of that?
For me, it's not so much that I'm "sympathetic to Emergent or Emergent thinkers" as that my Wesleyanism puts me out-of-step with my Reformed brothers and sisters. and, I'm always looking to learn from others & come to better and better understandings. In that respect I appreciate N. T. Wright, Michael Gorman, Peter Enns, Walter Brueggeman, etc., etc. — not suggesting either that I always agree with any of them or that they agree with each other! I've never been much of a follower at all. But, I continue to seek a better and fuller understanding.
I can understand your disillusionment with the Emergent writers. I do not share this disillusionment simply because I never was a follower of them in the first place. And, I find it hard to be a follower of anyone or any movement.
And, i appreciate Mars Hill Bible Church for providing a port in the storm when life in the church & denomination we were part of became so toxic we could no longer stay.
If it helps, you've used the word heretic which is extremely loaded. If your trying to focus on the ideas, I think it would be helpful if you stayed away from that word. When I hear it, it sounds like the person's defined themselves as inside some sort of exclusive club and they're policing the borders, making sure all those who don't agree stay outside. Acknowledging that this is an intra-Christian discussion among people who on all sides seek to follow the way of Jesus would help enormously in giving focus to the ideas.
What are you talking about? I have NOT used this word in this examination or in this discussion. Please explain…
For example, you said this on March 5:
"Why are those positions major problems? Because positive arguments for all three positions are neither part of the historic Christian faith nor, more importantly, are they part of gospel of Jesus Christ.
If Rob Bell argues that hell is simply a Western, post-Enlightenment concept that does not exist and is “empty” in the sense that no one will be judged negatively by God and that you can reject Jesus and still find His new reality (a.k.a. be saved), he is not teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and is actually teaching something that opposes the teachings of Jesus Himself, let alone the apostolic witness and historic Christian faith.
From what Rob has already written and said himself, it is not a stretch to be concerned about the teaching that will drop in our bookstores and countless peoples’ mailboxes and eReaders on March 15, which is why this discussion is so important.
This discussion is not simply about institutional preferences but on the nature of salvation itself. Discussing the nature of salvation is not window dressing, folks. It is the very heart of the gospel and center of the Christian faith, which has massive consequences for the real lives of real people and their real eternal outcomes."
I guess the word heretic isn't used, but I'm not sure starting the conversation by saying anyone who agrees with what you think Bell was going to argue for opposes the Gospel, opposes the church, opposes Jesus and could lead a person to Hell was the best way to go.
As Jeremy has said before, the Bible must be read in context. You cannot pull a verse out of mid-air and make it do and say something it doesn't. The Bible interprets itself when read in context. The verses above used to support a universalistic point of view really do not when read in context and compared to many other related verses.
I don't think anyone doubts that there is no such thing as 'pure exegesis' i mean that goes all the way back to Bultman in the 50's. And the role of pre-understanding, or what we bring to the text as a reader is part of modern hermeneutics and the historical critical method, i dont think that is unique to theological interpretation. Narrative critics have also said the same thing.
I sem-agree with your second paragraph, however it is a dialectical relationship. I do not think that there is an 'abstract' theology that we bring to interpretation. But the theology that we do bring is built upon presuppositions about what we think the text says, what we've heard about the text, and our previous interactions with the text. At the end of the day the two can't be neatly separated.
As to your last paragraph, I've always acknowledged my bent towards exegesis. and i don't think it's that accurate to say 'how i am being trained as a biblical scholar' For example, not just to just puff myself up, but Dr. Pasquarello said he was proud of my ability to hold exegesis and theology together and that I did some of the best work he has seen at our seminary. I only say that, to acknowledge my background and my growth and to push back and say have you grown in the area of exegesis? I think we all need to work on holding the two together and I'd like to see some on your part before you take a crack at 'how i have been trained.'
I hope it didn't sound like I was taking a 'crack' at your training — I didn't intend it that way.
Right on…this is why I'm starting to think blogs shouldn't exist!!
Or maybe those who write and comment on them should choose their words more carefully, and be more precise in their definitions.
Just so you know, Jeremy and Jason, I'm done writing on this blog (which is the only one I've ever written on, I think) because this is what I assumed it would come to. I did not intend to offend anyone here, I was stating some things I sensed were true, just like the author of this blog does.
I've spent a few years avoiding writing on your blog Jeremy, because I didn't want to offend you. Alas, it seems I have.
Please know, I have tons of respect for what you are doing, Jeremy, regarding church development. My 'reformed' comments are broadly in the context of three choices: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Reformed.
You said you were Protestant, so I assumed you didn't want to be categorized as Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. The only one left in my narrow worldview is Reformed. Again, I'm sorry.
You may be surprised that I have tons of critiques of Mars Hill too, but I still think it is a
Is it possible to make the whole document available as a PDF for easier reading in depth? Personally I find a printed copy much better for such analytical reading then using a screen.
Good idea! I've added an UPDATE at the top with a link to the full paper. Enjoy 🙂
Thanks, Jeremy