spamandham

I don't see how you can reasonably draw such a conclusion. I've given you two examples already of how inclusive language is often used to refer back to the same group long before the speaker or any listener could possibly have been born, and long after anyone involved in the specified action could possibly be alive.

You have simply ignored these. Why?

If it is your perspective that Paul viewed the death as salvic only to those who heard the gospel, then Paul already has a rather myopic view of salvation. What about the people who lived long before that? They obviously never heard the gospel either.

Does Paul ever states that the ONLY way to obtain salvation is to hear the gospel and accept it?

spamandham

I imagine You are correct regarding the definition of 'cumulative argument'. My point was that without assessing the odds, a cumulative argument amounts to no more than a matter of opinion, which is only as useful as the persuasive power of the presenter.

Paul uses the concept of 'brother' to refer to fellow Christians over and over:

Romans 1:13, 7:1, 8:12, 8:29**** (of particular relevance to this discussion), 9:3, 10:1, 12:1, 12:10, 14:10, 14:13, 14:15, 14:21, 15:14, 15:30, 16:14, 16:17, 16:23**** (of particular relevance again),

1 Corinthians 1:1, 1:10, 1:26, 2:1, 3:1, 4:6, 5:1, 5:11, 6:6, 6:8, 7:12, 7:24, 7:29, 8:11, 8:12, ... at least a dozen more here, plus over and over and over in the other authentic Pauline letters.

So, how many verses could possibly refer to blood kinship? Two as far as I'm aware.

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.


1 Cor 9:5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?

So is there any evidence that Paul might use the word 'brother' to give special recognition to church leaders? Yes.

2 Corinthians 8
23As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ.

So we have dozens of examples of Paul using the concept of 'brother' to refer to fellow Christians, and we have 1 example where Paul implies that 'brother' may well be a title bestowed on church leaders. If 'brother of the lord' refers to a leadership position within a church, then the two passages in question are understood to indicate that 1) James, not Cephas, is the leader of the Jerusalem church, 2) that Paul sees his own followers as distinct from followers of other churches, 3) that 'apostle' had some special meaning that did not indicate church leadership, and 4) that Paul saw Cephas as worthy of mention, even though he was neither an apostle nor the leader of a church.

Are any of these contentious?

So in Paul's view, all sinners lived and died prior to Jesus were inelligle for salvation?

andrewcriddle

I honestly don't see how your examples really fit the case.

You said.

A closer parallel would be This does not imply that WWII happened within the lifetimes of speaker or audience but IMO it does imply that there were some Germans who both fought in WWII and were subsequently delivered from what the speaker regards as tyranny. The idea that only Germans living long after WWII were delivered from tyranny by the German defeat in that war is not the natural reading of the claim.

You said

The passage is of the form "while X were still sinners Christ died for X". However exactly one defines and limits X it still seems to me that this implies that there were some members of the group X who were sinners at the time Christ died and who had the subsequent opportunity to benefit from Christ's death.
Paul's precise position on the various groups you mention is a matter of controversy. It is obvious that he did not limit salvation to those living after the death of Christ, but the precise status in Paul's mind of those who for example lived before the time of Abraham but who sought to live righteously according to the light of nature is not to me entirely clear.

However it seems clear that in Romans ch 5 Paul has at least primarily in mind those who have heard and accepted the gospel.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

I think we agree on the basic principle then. The language Paul uses implies that Christ's death atoned not only for Paul and his contemporaries, but also for those who were around when Christ died, as well as those who lived and died prior to Christ.

Where are you and Ben getting the idea that, from Paul's perspective, Christs death was only salvic for Paul and his contemporaries? I'm not seeing such an narrow exclusionary view of salvation anywhere in Paul's writings. Without that assumption, it isn't valid to claim the 'we' and 'us' infers Paul and his contemporaries.

Then I don't see how the 'we' and 'us' in the passage in question can reasonably interpreted as meaning 'paul and his contemporaries'.

1, Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Paul is selling a message, so I don't find it at all unusual that he would emphasize buying the message. That doesn't imply that Paul writes off everyone who lived before Christ died. The message Paul is selling sounds a lot like the modern liberal Christian position "everyone is saved by Christ's death except those who hear the message and reject it".

andrewcriddle

Paul clearly makes a difference between the spiritual condition of him and his readers and the spiritual condition of those before the death of Christ.

See Galatians end of chapter 3 beginning chapter 4
If Paul believes that there is a long gap between the death of Christ and the preaching of the Christian message then he is saying that during this long period people were all still in the spiritual condition of those before Christ's death even although Christ's death and resurrection has already happened.

This seems unlikely IMO.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I think I understand what you are saying, but, since neither your view nor my view holds that (for Paul) the phrase last Adam means last human being, I do not see why you are saying it. I am not seeing how it helps us decide between your view and mine.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

If it helps, I have the Pauline instances of this term on one of my web pages.

No. That is not my position. It is my position that the we in Romans 5 refers to Paul and his contemporaries; this position does not imply that Paul thought there is no hope for the OT saints (indeed, Romans 4 implies otherwise). He simply is not discussing them under that pronoun we.

Paul is allowed to talk about the final generation in special terms without implying anything pro or con about past generations. If I exclaim to my teammate after a soccer match: We won, that pronoun we, though it applies only to my team, does not imply that other teams in the tournament did not also win. Likewise, if Paul writes to his readers: We have been justified, that pronoun we, even if applied only to his contemporaries, does not imply that past generations have no access to justification.

Ben.

spamandham

Galatians end of chapter 3 beginning chapter 4

But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 3:24So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. 3:26For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.

Why does this not mean that it is faith that saved them from the law, and that this faith was revealed!? Paul doesn't even mention the death of Christ here, he's talking about faith. If anything, this passage supports the idea that the faith was revealed to people who were not there, otherwise, why a revelation at all?

I see no reason to discount this idea. Paul is explicitly saying the faith was revealed to them, and that the faith itself is what freed them from the law. I'm not getting how this can be taken to mean that he or his contemporaries were there at the death of Jesus.

spamandham

True, but Paul tells us who the "we" are - "sinners". I don't see why this should not be taken to mean "all sinners" rather than "me and my sinner contemporaries".

I'm not claiming it's impossible that Paul meant this passage in a narrower sense, I'm just claiming that the translations do not imply that's the sense he meant, so I don't know why you and Andrew prefer it.

andrewcriddle

IMO the idea that there is a long time gap between Christ's death and resurrection (which makes Christian faith possible), and God letting people know that the basis for human relation to God has been fundamentally changed, requires an explanation of why Paul thought God waited before letting anyone know.

You may not see any sort of need for any sort of explanation here. ie you may think that Paul would not have been in any way bothered by the problem of why God should in fulfilment of prophecy appoint a new way by which people can be reconciled to him, but then wait a long time before letting anyone know. If so I'm not sure what more I can say.

If however there is a need for an explanation then there seem only two possible answers for Paul to make. Either a/ the time of Christ's death was not appropriate in general for the revealing of the Gospel, Or b/ the rejection of Christ at the time of his death delayed the revealing of the Gospel until that generation had long passed away (As the disobedience of the Israelites prevented the entry into Canaan of that generation).

Paul's claim that Christ died 'at the right time' seems to rule out option a/ and Paul's belief that the death of Christ was on behalf of those who were then at enmity with him, seems to rule out option b/

Andrew Criddle