the "all" verse 18 and the "many" in 19

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Aki, Jun 17, 2002.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    verse 18 poses a problem for the limited atonement view. the term "all" was used for both judgment and free gift in the same manner. if it would mean a certain few, then it would imply that Adam's original sin was not passed down to all men, which is incorrect. if, on the other hand, it means the obvious meaning which is every single soul, then the limited atonement view would be incorrect.

    verse 19 is quite parallel. if the "many" in that passage would mean a limited individual then it would mean that not everybody was made sinners due to Adam's disobedience. if, on the other hand, it is taken to be every man, then again limited atonement goes contrary to this passage.
     
  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    verse 18 poses a problem for the limited atonement view. the term "all" was used for both judgment and free gift in the same manner. if it would mean a certain few, then it would imply that Adam's original sin was not passed down to all men, which is incorrect. if, on the other hand, it means the obvious meaning which is every single soul, then the limited atonement view would be incorrect.

    verse 19 is quite parallel. if the "many" in that passage would mean a limited individual then it would mean that not everybody was made sinners due to Adam's disobedience. if, on the other hand, it is taken to be every man, then again limited atonement goes contrary to this passage.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Just a point: Many does not mean "Not all." Many refers to a quantity, and we would surely agree that the 11 billion or so people that have ever lived or are living now all were sinners. We would also surely agree that of that number, perhaps 3 billion (don't know how accurate this is) have been saved - which is also "many."

    However, "all" in this case means "all." The free gift came upon all, yet all are not saved, so there must be a choice for man in the matter.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This verse poses no problem. In fact, it is a strong argument to the contrary. In the passage, the "all" are those who are "in Adam" and "in Christ." Paul's point is the modus operandi of justification. He concludes that all who are in Adam are affected by Adam's transgression the same way that all who are in Christ are affected by Christ's obedience.

    Your position leads to universalism. It is untenable in the context of Rom 5 as well as in the whole of theology.
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where do you see "in Adam" in this passage? Where do you see "in Christ?"
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

    Romans 5:18

    Therefore as by the offence of one…

    Or by one offence, as before, the guilt of which is imputed to, and

    [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation;

    which word is used in a legal sense, and intends condemnation to eternal death, as appears from the antithesis in the text; for if "justification of life", means an adjudging to eternal life, as it certainly does, the judgment or guilt, which is unto condemnation, must design a condemnation to eternal death, the just wages of sin: and this sentence of condemnation comes upon all men, all the sons of Adam without exception, even upon the elect of God themselves; though it is not executed upon them, but on their surety, whereby they are delivered from it:

    even so by the righteousness of one, [the free gift] came upon all men to justification of life;

    the righteousness of Christ being freely imputed without works, as it is to all the men that belong to the second Adam, to all his seed and offspring, is their justification of life, or what adjudges and entitles them to eternal life. The sentence of justification was conceived in the mind of God from eternity, when his elect were ordained unto eternal life, on the foot of his Son's righteousness; this passed on Christ at his resurrection from the dead, and on all his people as considered in him, when they, in consequence of it, were quickened together with him; and this passes upon the conscience of a sinner at believing, when he may, as he should, reckon himself alive unto God, and is what gives him a right and title to everlasting life and glory.

    Romans 5:19

    For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,

    This is the sum of what is said in the foregoing verses, that as by Adam's sin all his posterity are made sinners, and so are brought under a sentence of condemnation; in like manner by the obedience of Christ, all his seed are made righteous, and come under a sentence of justification of life: the persons made sinners are said to be "many", in opposition to the "one man", by whose disobedience they became so, and because there is an exception of one, even Jesus Christ; and mean all the natural descendants of Adam, who are many, and are so called, to answer to the subjects of justification in the next clause: what they are made sinners by, is "the disobedience of one man, Adam"; and by the first and single disobedience of his, in eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, by which they "were made sinners": the meaning of which is not, that they became sufferers for it, or subject to death on the account of it; the word used will not bear such a sense, but signifies men guilty of sin, and sometimes the worst and chief of sinners; besides, the apostle had expressed that before; add to this, that the sons of Adam could not be sufferers for his sin, or subject to death on account of it, if they were not made sinners by it, or involved in the guilt or it: and though the posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted in him, and so have sinned in him. This is also evident, from the sentence of condemnation and death passing upon all men for it; and even upon those, who had not actually sinned; to which may be added, that Adam's posterity are made sinners through his disobedience, in the same way as Christ's seed are made righteous by his obedience, which is by the imputation of it to them;

    so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;

    not by their own obedience; nor by their own obedience and Christ's together; but by his sole and single obedience to the law of God: and the persons made righteous by it are not all the posterity of Adam, and yet not a few of them; but "many", even all the elect of God, and seed of Christ; these are all made righteous in the sight of God, are justified from all their sins, and entitled to eternal life and happiness.


    One redeemed by Christ's blood,

    Ken
    Were it not for grace...

    [ June 17, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The context is provided by verses 12-17. These verses conclude the comparison of those in Adam and those in Christ.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    As Scott said, it is clear from teh context. The one man whose disobedience brought death is clearly Adam. The one man whose obedience brought life is clearly Christ. I recommend Moo (NICNT) or Schriener (BECNT), both of whom have good comments explaining the argument of this section. I have posted a brief summary of them elsewhere. It can probably be found by searching.
     
  8. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    NO! verse 18 refers to all persons, taken alone or even within context. to say that "all" refers only those who are in Adam would mean that not all were affected by Adam's disobedience.
    yup! again the "all" is used in the same situation for Christ and Adam. the question now is, how was it used for Adam? was it used for only those who are non-elect? NO! it was used for all men! the same is true for Christ.
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you arguing for universalism? Or against God's sovereignty?

    Neither the righteousness nor the gospel of Christ has come upon all men. If His righteousness had come upon all men then all would be saved. Also, have all men heard the gospel?

    If you say that someone who died without hearing the gospel might have been saved had they heard it then it follows that God must be responsible for their demise since He did not send them a witness. You would be quilty of what arminians wrongly accuse calvinists of believing.
     
  10. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    But all people (elect and nonelect) are born "in Adam". So what comes through Adam comes to every single human being.

    Look at verse 18:

    So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men; even so through the one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

    If the "all men" in the second half of the verse means every person who has ever lived, then it says that "justification of life" results in every person. That's a problem because that's universalism. Something isn't right!

    I think a big clue to all of Paul's "In Adam--In Christ" passages is found in 1 Cor 15. Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, Paul says:

    For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming...."

    Here, the text defines for you: the "all" that are made alive in Christ. It is "all those who are Christ's at His coming," or all those who are "in Christ." I think the same definition probably holds for the other Adam/Christ passages as well.

    Another way to think of it might be that Adam represents all the "old creation", which we are all born into, and all people inherit the bad stuff from him; while Christ represents the "new creation", which we are re-born into, and all those who are re-born inherit all the good stuff from Him.

    [ June 20, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good responses Scott and Russell. You have hit the nail on the head. The position that Aki espouses leads only to univeralism. I think this is a dangerous part of the theology that many here are espousing that they have not reckoned with. If all men without exception were made righteous through the obedience of one man, then God cannot justly send anyone to hell. Yet we know that is not true. God justly sends people to hell for their sin (Rev 20:11-15). Therefore, "all" cannot mean all without exception.
     
  12. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of you sound like O.J. Simpson. 'All doesn't mean all.' . . . . especially if it does not fit into Reformation Theology.
     
  13. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, my mistake. I knew it was wrong as soon as I activated the computer.

    What I meant to say is that some are like our former President with his word gymnastics and mental stretches.
     
  14. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    quite a point, as Pastor Larry has stressed. i have some thoughts to say though. romans 5 has streesed the definition of "all" to be all men, without any qualifiers, even when taken in context. russell has tried to treat I Cor. 15 as a qualifier to romans 5. but it is an incorrect approach. the "all" in romans 5 speaks of the people whom Christ died for, which is everybody, while the "all" I Cor. 15 speaks of those who became fruits of Christ's death, which is not everybody, for not everybody will be saved, as not everybody will have faith in God, though Christ died for everybody. also, the two "all's" in rom. 5 was used in the same manner to mean all people, implying that as all people died in Adam, Christ also died for all people. I Cor. 15, on the other hand, used the two all in DIFFERENT manner, implying all to be dead in Adam, while all that are in Christ will be resurrected.

    to Pastor Larry and Russell, it should also be considered that God is the One who imputes Adam's sin to every soul. true, Adam is the one who sinned, but God is the One who designed for Adam to affect everybody else. Again, God imputes Adam's original sin to everybody. i have these points to assert:

    1. People do not die spiritually because they commit sin. Rather, people commit sin because even at the beginning they are spiritaully dead since God imputted Adam's sin to each of everybody's soul.
    2. The reason that God imputes Adam's sin to everybody is for Christ's death to reach everybody. Christ died for all those in Adam, which is everybody.
    3. if God imputted the sin of Adam to a soul and sentenced it to death because it is spirtually dead due to that sin which God imputted in Him, then it is fallacious to say that people receive the second death due to their sins. rather it should be because God imputted a sin to them. again, the cause of our spiritual death is not our sin. it is our spiritual death which causes us to sin.
    4. people will receive the second death not because of their sins, since Christ paid for those already. rather, they will receive the second death because of lack of faith in Christ, so that Christ's blood was not imputted to them, thus they were not decalred righteous (justified) though their sins were paid for.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    Isn't refusing to repent and believe the gospel a sin?

    One redeemed by Christ's blood,

    Ken
    Were it not for grace...
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not even you, Ray, believe that "all men" are made righteous by Christ. So you deny the meaning of "all" in the sense that you accuse us of. The difference is that we have a coherent reason for believing it.

    For Aki, who once again repeats the fallacy that men are not sent to hell for their sins, you have just created an unjust God whose punishment doesn't fit the crime. If Christ paid for their sins, then they go to heaven. God cannot exact two payments for the same sin while remaining a just God. It's that simple.
     
  17. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    the question here is God's standard. if His standard is a soul whose sins are paid for, then all must be saved for those who believe that Christ died for everyone. but not so is God's standard. His standard is perfect righteousness, which is not imputed to everybody, but only to those who receive it through faith in Christ. a soul whose sins are paid for does not necessarily get to be justified. sins were paid for, yes. but justification was not imputed. therefore, a soul does not pass God's standard and deserves death if he do not apply faith. and it fits God's righteousness, justice and love.

    God does not exact two payments for the same sin. Christ paid for sins already, and nobody goes to Hell for their sins. explanation is above.

    i still have this one thought. God imputed Adam's sin to everybody. again the reason we get to be spiritually dead is because of it. in fact the laws were given not for us to prove that we are as righteous or as sinless as God, but rather to show us that we are not, as God designed every human being that way upon imputation of Adam's original sin to everyone. even if a man does not commit a single sin all his life, he remains spiritually dead because God has imputed this original sin on him, plus a sin nature. given this and following your logic then, God will be punishing man not for their sins which they commited but rather for that original sin which God Himself has imputed to them. in fact it is the sole reason why men are spiritually dead. the personal sins everyone commit is merely a product or a proof of that spiritual death. but such is not the case. Chist paid for all sins, but everyone remains to be imputed with Christ's righteousness before getting to be accepted by God.

    [ June 19, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  18. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this on another board but others found it an interesting word study. I examined Paul's use of "all" in the book of Romans to see if pas really means pas - (...if all really means all)

    Romans 3:23

    "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

    Hmm... That must mean only the people Paul is writing to. Where does that place everyone else?

    The verse before: Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

    Look at that! In this verse, Paul specifies who the "all" is referring to!

    Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

    He specifies the all.

    Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

    "us all!" Wow! Paul is good at specifying who the all refers to!

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Ooh... Hmmm... Is this all believers or all men? It seems to say all men, and there doesn't seem to be any qualifiers! So who is it? Seems that since all people will die, it must mean all men.

    Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

    So now we have our first problem! Who are the "all" we're talking about? We can either do two things Either the all's change meaning or there's something deeper there!

    It is interesting to note that the words "the free gift" is not in the original Greek. What does justification mean? It means embued righteousness, correct? I think we can look at the previous verse to explain this. Death reigned for people who chose to sin, so Christ brings life for people who choose to follow him. (That received, or lambano, takes the present active participle, so they're the ones doing the taking. If it was present passive, there would be the idea of receiving - the active shows that they're doing the action of taking. Greek is cool, huh?)

    Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

    Paul is very specific about using "us all." Note that he doesn't say, "us and only us."

    Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    Is he only over Christians?

    Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    Is He Lord over all or Lord over only Christians. Notice the second "all" - he adds the "all who call upon him." Again, an active tense and a specifier.

    Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    So are just Christians concluded to disbelief? Are we changing the meaning of all to suit theology here? Does the "all" change?

    Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
    Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

    Only Christians or Non-Christians, too?

    Rom 15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

    Note the specifiers - Are these gentile Christians or everyone?

    Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

    Hmmm - another addition of the second person plural!

    *******

    IMPORTANT!

    I hope you realize after viewing all these instances of the word all that Paul is extremely specific with his use of qualifiers. There's a big difference between humon pas and pantas - between you all and all people. In the Calvinist view, there is no consistency - it would seem that they pick and choose what to ascribe to the word pas or pantas, because I'm sure we'd all agree that all men everywhere have sinned; however, you don't believe that Christ died for all.

    It is my hope that people have read this far and see the same thing. We can go through the other books of Paul to examine the use of all when dealing with people if you'd like.
     
  19. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is so, then why is does Romans 2 say that people are "storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to each man according to his deeds"?
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...or we can accept an understanding that is consistent with the rest of Romans, Paul's writings, and the Bible as a whole. Has the free gift come upon all men? Or has it come to mankind? As I asked earlier: "Are you arguing for universalism? Or against God's sovereignty?

    Neither the righteousness nor the gospel of Christ has come upon all men. If His righteousness had come upon all men then all would be saved. Also, have all men heard the gospel?

    If you say that someone who died without hearing the gospel might have been saved had they heard it then it follows that God must be responsible for their demise since He did not send them a witness. You would be quilty of what arminians wrongly accuse calvinists of believing."


    Yes, it is understood from the previous verses.
    The previous verse says absolutely nothing about those who choose to sin. It refers one man's offense which caused death to reign and contrast that with the those who reign in Christ. In spite of your condescending tone, you have stripped this scripture from its context in an effort to make it say more than it does. Nothing in a normal reading and understanding of this passage invalidates Calvinism. You are left to seize upon individual words and verses out of context or to draw meaningless generalizations in order to make your point.
     

Share This Page

Loading...