The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[mondar]

The post I am making here is not with reference to Steve but anyone who wishes to be involved. I want to look at Romans 5:18. I will be quoting the ASV (American Standard Version). Or the 1881 WH.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
18αρα ουν ως δι ενος παραπτωματος εις παντας ανθρωπους εις κατακριμα ουτως και δι ενος δικαιωματος εις παντας ανθρωπους εις δικαιωσιν ζωης

One thing I wan to admit right up front is that the greek grammar is a little choppy in this verse.

*** "through one trespass" In the first clause Paul speaks of "one trespass." The one trespass is of course the sin of Adam. The sin of Adam was a single act of rebellion. The word for that single act of rebellion is "trespass." Paul uses the same word (trespass) in Ephesians 2:1. This word "trespass" is not the only word carried to Ephesians 2. Also the word "death" is carried to Ephesians 2. The two passages have several concepts in common. Ephesians 2:1 says we are "dead in our sins and trespasses." Ephesians 2 says we were "made alive" in Christ. So then, the Christian is no longer dead and under the judgment of Adam, but we are made alive and the Christian is a part of another man, the man/God Christ.

*** "unto all men into judgment" The verse next clause tells us what happened to mankind as a result of the one sin of Adam. Adam sinned, but all men who are "in Adam" receive this condemnation. The question here relates to the phrase "all men." I would ask are all men under condemnation? Are even those "In Christ" being condemned? How then will we read 8:1 which tells us there is "no condemnation?" While certainly we were all born into Adam, when we were "born again" we were born into Christ. We are then no longer "in Adam," but we are "in Christ." So then, while all are born into Adam, not all mankind is in Adam. Some are in Christ.

*** "through one righteousness" Here is where the grammar is rough. The ASV supplies the word "act." It reads "one act of righteousness." The substitutionary atonement is in view here. Christ was condemned for our sins, and for our trespass. This substitution was penal in that Christ suffered the "judgment" mentioned in this verse, but then he was raised to life. So also, we who are in Christ were in his "judgment" and then we were raised in his resurrection. This is the topic Paul will take up in Romans 6. Nevertheless, the phrase in verse 18 refers to the cross and the righteous life and the substutitionary death of Jesus Christ.

*** "Free gift to all men unto justification." At this point many non-Calvinist exegesis totally falls apart and becomes totally inconsistent. The non-Calvinist want to make the term "all" apply to all men without exception. The non-Calvinist ignores that the rest of this would be the "justification" of all men without exception. In fact, to follow the parallelism.... since I have already suggested that there are some men not in Adam, so also there are some men not in Christ. The term "All" here is referring to all men who are "in Christ" the second man. When we consider the group of men "in Christ," then I would agree that the term "All" refers to "all men in Christ without exception" are justified. There is not one man in Christ that is not justified.

CONCLUSION---- There are actually 4 different kinds of interpreters in Romans 5 and Romans 5:18.
1---- The Calvinist--- The Calvinist will see the term "all" as referring to a people group. Either "all" in Adam or "all" in Christ. Being in Adam results in condemnation. Being one of the "all" in Christ results in a "free gift" and "justificaiton."

2--- The universalist---- The universalist ignores the fact that there are two people groups in Romans 5. They see the term "all" as meaning "all men without exception." So then, for the universalist we are all in both groups, both Adam and Christ. The universalist must explain how we can be in death and life, judgment and justification both at the same time. Of course being in both Adam and Christ is not a reconcilable groups or concepts. The universalist can not exegete the passage consistently.

3--- Some Arminians---- The Arminian position is nearly identical with the universalist position. The difference is that the Arminian will become inconsistent long before the universalist. The Arminian will look at the single term "all" and demand that this term be seen as "All men without exception" and then ignore the rest of the verse that says that all men are justified. I would see this is the least possible position exegetically.

4--- The New Perspective on Paul---- This is the group represented by NTWright. This group denies the soteriological significance of the term "justification." Of couse, in this group, future justification is based upon works. The works of the future mean that your claim to be "in Christ" is then justified. This group has the same tension of verse 21 where justification results in the righteousness that brings eternal life.

So, while some might jump on the term "all" in Romans 5 and claim that the term must mean "all men without exception." The only position that exegetes all parts of the passage consistently is Calvinism.

 

[mondar]

Hi mondar,
I can't believe you called me steve...

Perhaps I could have worded that better... By 'means of exegesis', I meant ones theological view which is made up by the many lenses we have available to view scripture through. An example might be a historical lens, or even the textual criticism lens, archeological lens etc etc etc. The more lenses one can view scripture through, the better ones hermeneutics become due to a unified redaction of said exegesis.

As far as which commentary I've disagreed with, it really doesn't matter at the moment as I'm not going to engage in this argument... I'm just trying to get the thread back on track and end the mud slinging.

Grace and Peace.

Where did I put my glasses?

Oh, its "stove."

Wait until I am 90------ where did I put my hearing aid? Ahh, I forget.

 

[Elijah674]

Hey, don't run off, give us your thinking on the scape/goat?

-Elijah

 

[Alabaster]

So I guess that He didn't violate Pharoah's will? What about Dathan and Abiram? What you have said here is that God must bow to the will of men because man is sovereign. You have effectively put man on the throne of God.

LOL! False. God has created man with a sovereign will of His own, as He has given us dominion over the earth. He has given us a sovereignty of will that He will not violate. He will never force us to accept His Son or to love Him. He loves and respects us that much!

The problem is that people neglect the authority that He has given them. As far as Pharaoh goes, Pharaoh abused the authority given him. the consequence for that is dire JUDGMENT.

Genesis 1:28-29
28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” 29 Then God said, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.

 

[mondar]

Let's all have a little less opinion toward one another and a bit more exegetical meat to our posts... or I'll lock the thread(s) and end the discussions per our TOS.

It's ok to ask questions, but it's not ok to slander as slander serves no purpose other than deterring from the hard work of exegesis, which is where truth will be found.

For example, if one wishes to speak about ones opinion in the matter of, lest say Pharaoh, then one should reference a particular portion of scripture... do a good exegesis on the matter and then after proper exegesis on supporting verses that may support ones doctrines, only then can a proper redaction occur.

To not do the hard work of exegesis is to succumb to banter and slander so the question is, will you put the effort in, or not? That will determine the life of these types of threads moving forward.

Grace and Peace.

Stove,
I think the problem is the format of the threads. Do not misunderstand, I am not questioning the rules or your post asking for exegesis and less banter. I certainly support what you said. I do want to point out that some here do not have the skill or knowledge to do exegesis or even to respond to exegesis. Conversations with such individuals can never be lifted above the nonsense and banter. Anyone can come here and post almost anything they want to post. But that is the nature of the boards, it is open to anyone no matter what their skills are in the scriptures, theology, or debating.

The problem with this is that the more skilled and knowledgeable individuals will commonly be not take part. Yet even then, it would turn into a lot of nastiness and banter. I think the problem with the board is found in the nature of man. Anger, arrogance, and the evil part of man will always be an issue. I wish I had a positive suggestion to improve the quality of the board. I have none.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

*** "unto all men into judgment" The verse next clause tells us what happened to mankind as a result of the one sin of Adam. Adam sinned, but all men who are "in Adam" receive this condemnation. The question here relates to the phrase "all men." I would ask are all men under condemnation? Are even those "In Christ" being condemned? How then will we read 8:1 which tells us there is "no condemnation?" While certainly we were all born into Adam, when we were "born again" we were born into Christ. We are then no longer "in Adam," but we are "in Christ." So then, while all are born into Adam, not all mankind is in Adam. Some are in Christ.

The All Men that Jesus Christ died for are by Nature in Adam, but in Election in Christ.

By Nature, the condemnation of their sin was never laid to their charge, that condemnation that belonged to them because of their sin in Adam was imputed to Christ ! They belong to that world that did not have their sin or trespasses laid to their charge 2 cor 5:19 and Jn 1 29.

Even when they are born experientially sinful by nature, the legal guilt of that sinfulness was not imputed to their charge but unto Christ.

And so the same all men who did not have their sins guilt legally charged upon them, but upon Christ, they are the ones that by Christ one act of righteousness they shall receive Justification of life.

This is not a offer of Justification of life, this is not a making available of Justification of Life, but a legal Divine Reckoning of Justification of Life because of Christ Righteousness imputed to their charge, and their sin not being imputed to their charge.

 

[francisdesales]

mondar:



The All Men that Jesus Christ died for are by Nature in Adam, but in Election in Christ.

By Nature, the condemnation of their sin was never laid to their charge, that condemnation that belonged to them because of their sin in Adam was imputed to Christ ! They belong to that world that did not have their sin or trespasses laid to their charge 2 cor 5:19 and Jn 1 29.

Even when they are born experientially sinful by nature, the legal guilt of that sinfulness was not imputed to their charge but unto Christ.

And so the same all men who did not have their sins guilt legally charged upon them, but upon Christ, they are the ones that by Christ one act of righteousness they shall receive Justification of life.

This is not a offer of Justification of life, this is not a making available of Justification of Life, but a legal Divine Reckoning of Justification of Life because of Christ Righteousness imputed to their charge, and their sin not being imputed to their charge.

How sad to see Christianity turned into a "salvation scheme" akin to making sin something on our credit report and Jesus provides our debt relief...

 

[savedbygrace57]

2 pet 3:9 has been abused !

Many have used the scripture in 2 pet 3 9 as a proof text that God wants all men without exception to come to repentance. That that interpretation is pure human reasoning and speculation is seen in many ways throughout scripture, but here is one of those ways.

Its a fact, that there are some living upon the earth today Whom God is reserving to be punished : They are the unjust !

Remember, in rev 22 it reads let the unjust be unjust still

rev 22:11

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.



2 pet 2:9

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

The unjust, are those whom Christ blood did not Justify, hence, they are being reserved by the power of God to be punished for their sins.

Now, what sense would it make, and how much of a contradiction it would be for God to be waiting and not willing for these who He is reserving to be punished, to be waiting for and desiring their repentance

 

[mondar]

How sad to see Christianity turned into a "salvation scheme" akin to making sin something on our credit report and Jesus provides our debt relief...

Francis, don't you think what you said is a little bit of a cheap shot?

 

[mondar]

mondar:
The All Men that Jesus Christ died for are by Nature in Adam, but in Election in Christ.

First, I want to say that was very perceptive of you to notice a tension in my statements. You are asking a hard question which will take some time for me to answer.

You are right in that I do not see the believer as being "in Adam." Your concern is that I also do not see the Christian as having an "Adamic nature." Let me state from the start that I absolutely agree with you that the Christian has an Adamic sin nature. But because of what you said, I feel the need to advance the discussion further and state why I believe we are no longer "in Adam" but have an Adamic nature. I also feel the need to explain what I mean by that statement. There is a tension in that statement, but I believe when looking at both Romans 5 and 6 it can be seen that it is biblically and exegetically correct. No for my comments.

WHY I BELIEVE WE ARE NOT "IN ADAM" BUT WE HAVE AN ADAMIC NATURE, AND WHAT THIS MEANS.
I believe we are no longer "in Adam," but we are "in Christ, I believe that we have an Adamic nature, but while the Adamic nature is alive in the Christian, we are no longer slaves to the Adamic nature.

In Romans 5 we see concepts that are exact opposites like "life" (in Christ) and "death" (in Adam). All in Adam die. If you read my previous post, I associated the term "death" with Ephesians 2. You know that context, and that Christ makes alive and we are then no longer dead. Before regeneration the Christian was "dead" in Adam. The question is are we still in Adam after regeneration. The Christian is certainly not dead (in the Ephesians sense), but we are alive. So then, the question is after regeneration are we both "in Adam" (dead) and in Christ (alive)?" It seems an odd question because we cannot be both dead and alive. Neither can we be both unregenerate and regenerate. I am suggesting that neither can we be both in Adam and in Christ at the same time. We were once in Adam and dead, now we are "in Christ" and alive.

When I say we are no longer "in Adam" I am speaking of position. However, your question spoke of "nature" and not position. We would both agree that we cannot be both unregenerate and regenerate! I am guessing we can also agree that we cannot be both dead and alive (remeber Eph 2 again)? So then, the question is how can we have an Adamic nature, and be "in Christ." For the Adamic nature is death, but our position in Christ is eternal life. That question is answered in Romans 6. Romans 6 further articulates what the nature of the saved is all about. Romans 6 further explains what it means to be "in Christ" from Romans 5. Chapter 6 details the Lordship of Christ, and that the lordship of our "old man" (IE Adamic nature, cf Romans 6:6 below) died in Christ. Chapter 6 is about "Lordship." Christ is now our Lord, and not our Adamic natures (IE old man).

This is why Romans 6:6 says
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;
The old man, the legal right of our Adamic nature to be in control of the nature of the elect was broken at the cross because we are not "in Adam," but we are "in Christ." There is something "done away" with when we are "in Christ." The thing being done away with in verse 6 is the "old man." I would identify this "old man" with our legal position of being "in Adam" in Romans 5. Let me say that this does not mean that our Adamic nature has ceased to exist, but it does mean that our Adamic nature, or our "old man" no longer has the legal right to make us its slave. Notice that verse 6 does not actually say that we have no sin, but rather it denies we are no longer in "bondage to sin" If you can read greek, go through Romans 6 and just notice the large number of times the term "doulos" is used. Romans 6 is not talking about the irridaction of the Adamic nature, but rather that the Adamic nature is no longer our legal master. It is not the Adamic nature that dies, but the legal right of that Adamic nature to be our Lord that dies. So then, in Romans 6:7, we are declared just not from our sins, but from sin itself. Let me move to Romans 6:18ff.

Then I see Romans 6:18
(ASV) Romans 6:18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.
In this verse the key is the term "free from sin." Again, we are not free from "sins" but we are free from the slavery we once had to our Adamic nature when we were "in Adam." When we were "in Adam" we were rebels and sinful y nature. When we were placed into Christ the legal status of our Adamic nature was changed. The Adamic nature is no longer the slave master, but now it is righteousness and God (see slaves in vs 18 and 22). This does not mean the Adamic nature no longer exists, but simply it is no longer our slave master. So then, this does not mean we have no sin nature, but the sin nature is not our legal master, it is Christ.

As an illustration, I would mention the antebellum black slave was by law a slave. He could not go free. After Lincoln the former slave was then free. This does not mean the old master was dead however. So then, the former slave could go right back to the plantation and work for his former slave master. Of course if you follow the analogy, this should never be for the Christian. So Paul says in verse 15....
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
We are neither under our former master, the Adamic nature (IE sin) nor are we under the law, but we are under Christ.

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ROMANS 5 and 6.
Now lets return to Romans 5. So then, I would view the Christian as not being "in Adam." But being "In Christ" does not mean that the cross destroyed our Adamic sin nature, but it did set us free in the legal sense that we are no longer the slave of Christ. I would agree with you that we have an Adamic nature, but to go one step further then what we have discussed, I would not see the Christian as being in bondage to the Adamic sin nature because we are no longer "in Adam."

By Nature, the condemnation of their sin was never laid to their charge, that condemnation that belonged to them because of their sin in Adam was imputed to Christ ! They belong to that world that did not have their sin or trespasses laid to their charge 2 cor 5:19 and Jn 1 29.

Even when they are born experientially sinful by nature, the legal guilt of that sinfulness was not imputed to their charge but unto Christ.

And so the same all men who did not have their sins guilt legally charged upon them, but upon Christ, they are the ones that by Christ one act of righteousness they shall receive Justification of life.

This is not a offer of Justification of life, this is not a making available of Justification of Life, but a legal Divine Reckoning of Justification of Life because of Christ Righteousness imputed to their charge, and their sin not being imputed to their charge.

In the first three paragraphs above I think "imputation" is the concept you are articulating. Thats fine. I am uncertain of where you are going in the 4th paragraph. There could be a difference of opinion there, I am not sure. I would agree that justification is not being made available. That would be like saying being "in Christ" is being made available, but concepts would be absurd. I would also agree that it is a legal reckoning when we are put "in Christ." On the other hand, this is not to mean that I would deny that faith is the human requirement for justification. Of course Faith only comes to those who are "in Christ," and faith is given by God in regeneration, but that does not mean that justification does not require human faith. Do we differ on that point?

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

Your concern is that I also do not see the Christian as having an "Adamic nature."

Yes, He does, but its condemnation legally has been bore by Christ. The Believer is not condemned before God for having that nature.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar on justification of life:

. I would also agree that it is a legal reckoning when we are put "in Christ."

Well, The elect were put in Christ before the world began, thats what it means to be Chosen in Him.

Also, The Justification of the elect is at the same time that God purposed not to impute their sins unto them but unto Christ. When do you suppose that was ?

 

[Drew]

4--- The New Perspective on Paul---- This is the group represented by NTWright. This group denies the soteriological significance of the term "justification."

I believe you are correct. NT Wright asserts that "justification" has nothing to do with the process by which one is "saved" - he would say that justification is the declaration that one is a member of the true "covenant family". But Wright would also say that anyone who is justified is also "saved".

This group has the same tension of verse 21 where justification results in the righteousness that brings eternal life.

Wright has no trouble with verse 21 as far as I can tell. What "problem" do you think Wright would have with verse 21?

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

Of course Faith only comes to those who are "in Christ," and faith is given by God in regeneration, but that does not mean that justification does not require human faith. Do we differ on that point?

Yes, we differ big time. Justification before God began with the non imputation of the elects guilt, they deserved and placing it into the responsibility of Jesus Christ.

If Christ died for our sins 2000 yrs ago, that presupposes that our sins had been laid to His charge, if that be True, how could I in 1957 be guilty of them before God. Have they been paid for 2000 yrs ago.

If so, then Who can lay any charge against Gods elect, for God hath Justified, Christ hath died and rose again because of that Justification..

rom 8:


33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died,

rom 4:

25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

My Faith had nothing to do with my Justification before God.

 

[Alabaster]

How sad to see Christianity turned into a "salvation scheme" akin to making sin something on our credit report and Jesus provides our debt relief...

But you are correct. We are born sinners and with huge debt that Jesus Christ has come to pay, to redeem us. The word 'redeem' in scripture has the connotation of the payment of debt.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, don't you think what you said is a little bit of a cheap shot?

No, I don't, Mondar. It is an attempt to transcend such discussion.

The more I read about the profoundness of God's offer to man, beginning with the depths of the teachings on the Trinity, the more I realize that these "salvation schemes" entirely miss the point of the true relationship that God is offering to man.

Have you ever wondered why such discussions are quite rare in ancient Christian writings, while discussions on divinization and theosis are prominent? The Bible is not teaching us about merely being returned to the Garden, Mondar...

"Eyes have not seen...etc.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

But you are correct. We are born sinners and with huge debt that Jesus Christ has come to pay, to redeem us. The word 'redeem' in scripture has the connotation of the payment of debt.

My point, Alabaster, is that the Bible's teachings of God's offer of Love is much more than just cleaning up our credit reports...

Christianity is about a relationship with God, being drawn into sharing in the divine nature of the Blessed Trinity. Participation in the work of God is one of these benefits, responding to God's Love with our own finite participation in that love towards our neighbors is another.

Quite frankly, God did not have to become man to "free us of our debt"... Think about WHY God became man, according to the early Christians.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I believe you are correct. NT Wright asserts that "justification" has nothing to do with the process by which one is "saved" - he would say that justification is the declaration that one is a member of the true "covenant family". But Wright would also say that anyone who is justified is also "saved".

Wright has no trouble with verse 21 as far as I can tell. What "problem" do you think Wright would have with verse 21?

I don't think Wright connects "justification" to eternal life.

"Justification" is definitely a part of the context of Romans 5?
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.

Justification results in "righteousness unto eternal life?"
21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So then, with the concept of eternal life and justification in the very same context, how does N T Wright make justification non-salvific? There seems to be a problem with his view when we get to the statement on "eternal life" in verse 21. Justification is salvific.

 

[Alabaster]

My point, Alabaster, is that the Bible's teachings of God's offer of Love is much more than just cleaning up our credit reports...

Christianity is about a relationship with God, being drawn into sharing in the divine nature of the Blessed Trinity. Participation in the work of God is one of these benefits, responding to God's Love with our own finite participation in that love towards our neighbors is another.

Quite frankly, God did not have to become man to "free us of our debt"... Think about WHY God became man, according to the early Christians.

Regards

I agree that Christianity is about relationship, and it is not about religion. However, we cannot enter into relationship with God without allowing Jesus Christ to remove our debt load of sin from our backs.

Only then can we share in His life-giving nature, and 'participate in that love towards our neighbours'.

God DID have to become man to free us! If there was some other way, He would have done it.

 

[mondar]

My point, Alabaster, is that the Bible's teachings of God's offer of Love is much more than just cleaning up our credit reports...

Christianity is about a relationship with God, being drawn into sharing in the divine nature of the Blessed Trinity. Participation in the work of God is one of these benefits, responding to God's Love with our own finite participation in that love towards our neighbors is another.

Quite frankly, God did not have to become man to "free us of our debt"... Think about WHY God became man, according to the early Christians.

Regards

Francis, the reason I suggested that your first statement might be a "cheap shot" was because nobody is denying that there is a relationship aspect in the scriptures. If I read you right, your objection is to the concept of "imputation." If I understand what you are saying... it must be either imputation or a relationship. I do not disagree with either truth, but would say that there is a relationship because of imputed righteousness. So then, would it not misrepresent my position to suggest that I am saying that "imputed righteousness" is all there is to the scriptures and the triune God?

SBG, maybe he was speaking to you. Do you take a view that is different from mine?