I used the dictionary for the meaning of ALL. The dictionary (the accepted authority on the meaning of words says ALL can be understood TWO ways. Saying ALL means ALL has no communicative value. "X" means "X" for every word in every language. This definition conveys no worth ... if it did we wouldn't need dictionaries or not as much.
I hope you are right for then everyone without exception is heaven bound for we all without exception have been justified.
Romans 8:30 He also justified [declared free of the guilt of sin]; and those whom He justified, He also glorified [raising them to a heavenly dignity].
But since WE KNOW that everyone doesn't go to heaven WE KNOW the ALL in
Romans 5:18 does NOT mean everyone without exception.
Premise 1:
Romans 8:30 All means everyone without exception is justified
Premise 2: Some people go to hell
Premise 3: If you are 'justified' you go to heaven (
Romans 8:30)
Conclusion: One or more of the premises is WRONG. (I suggest it's your meaning of ALL)
All is always confined to a group. If I say all of the trees on the earth, am I excluding any trees? If I say all of the trees in the United States, am I excluding any trees? If I say all of the trees in the state of New York, have I excluded any trees? The answer is no. In the first example all is without exception. It's all of the tree's on the earth. The other two examples are smaller groups. In each of the examples, did all mean all or were some trees excluded?
Yes, Roman's 5:18 does mean all without exception. If it doesn't, Paul's analogy Falls apart. Death came to all men through Adam and justification of life comes to all men through Christ. But it's not really all men but some? One would think if Paul meant some men he would have said some men.
The reason you're having to say all doesn't mean all in the passage is because you're approaching it from the idea of Penal Atonement. That's not the Biblical model. Penal Atonement is a Reformation doctrine. It comes from the Satisfaction model of the Atonement of Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm said that man had offended God and that offense was so great that man couldn't make up for it. Therefore God had to do it by sending His Son to die. The problem is Anselm's theory was just that, a theory. It was departure from the historic faith. The Reformers took Anselm's theory that they had grown up with and tweaked it into what is now the Penal Model of the Atonement, Penal Atonement. Penal Atonement says that man sinned and owes a debt to God for that sin. Since man can't pay the debt someone else had to. That someone else was Christ. According to the doctrine Christ died in man's place to appease the wrath of God. The problem with Penal Atonement, besides not being Biblical, is that it's a logical contradiction. God said, 'the soul that sins shall die'. Paul said, "the wages of sin is death". All people sin and all people die. They pay their "sin debt". If Christ paid the "sin debt" to God then Christians shouldn't die, but they do. If, as many claim, the penalty for sin is eternal conscious torment, there's a big problem, because Christ didn't suffer eternal conscious torment. Here's the logical contradiction. When we look through the Scriptures we find that God has promised to forgive sins. God didn't say people could pay for their sins. If Jesus paid the "sin debt" then the Christian's sins are not forgiven, they are paid for. Yet, that's not what we find in Scripture. Payment and forgiveness of a debt are mutually exclusive, it's one or the other, but not both. The idea of Penal Atonement simply doesn't fit the Scriptures.
However, neither of these two , Anselm's satisfaction model, nor the Penal model of the Atonement, are the historic Christian faith. That distinction belongs to the Ransom Model of the Atonement. This is the model that was held by the Church for the first 1000 years of it's existence. There are several facets of the Ransom model, but in a nutshell it says that Adam, when he chose to disobey God, fell under Satan's authority. As such his offspring likewise were under Satan's authority. However, God had a plan to remedy this situation. That plan would be that Christ would give Himself as a ransom to ransom or redeem mankind for the Father. Christ's death accomplished this and mankind was again under God. However, there is still the issue of man's sin that needs to be dealt with. Even though man has been redeemed, he is still subject to death. All men will die. But, God has made a way for man that that death doesn't have to be the end. If that man will believe God and follow Christ, God has promised that He will forgive the man of his sins and will give him eternal life.
So, you see, under the Ransom model everything fits together nicely. As in Roman's 5:18 justification of life comes to all men, because Christ has redeemed mankind from Satan and certain death. However, man still has his sin issue to deal with. If he chooses to believe and follow Christ that sin is forgiven. So, in
Romans 5:18 both instances of all mean all. Paul's analogy works and doesn't break down. Jesus died as a ransom for all, but not all are saved because not all choose to follow Christ. So, you see, when we go back to the original Christian belief about the Atonement everything fits together and all of the "all" statements can be understood just as written. We don't have to start saying all only means all over here, but not over there.
Instead of changing the words in Scripture, as Christians, we need to start changing what we believe to fit the words of Scripture.
2
