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

[savedbygrace57]

nat:

How can His sheep go to hell?

Huh ?? Where did I post that such a thing was even possible ? For its not possible for any of His Sheep to go to hell, so please, do not misrepresent what I have posted sir ? I would appreciate it..

 

[savedbygrace57]

nat

You are correct! The verb used in verse 10 is indeed in the perfect tense. Which is to say, that what Christ did is done.

Which was perfect them He died for. Heb 10:

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

And sanctified them He died for. heb 10:

10By the which will we are sanctified , sanctified is in the perfect tense here, and it applies to the we, which is the subject of the verb sanctified.

 

[mondar]

A QUESTION...... SHOULD NOT THE PHRASE "LIMITED ATONEMENT" BELONG TO NON-CALVINISTS?

It is an interesting quirk of history that we speak of the 5 points of Calvinism. Many can recite them. Yet, in history, they were actually 5 responses to the Remonstrants, and were not thought up in a vacuum. How many know the original 5 articles of the Remonstrants? Yet most of us can recite the 5 points of Calvin. Below is the 2nd article of the 5 on the universal extent and limited power of the atonement.

Five articles of Remonstrance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I wish to contrast two views. Some call it Calvinism and Arminianism. The problem with the term "Arminism" is that most arminians call themselves "modified Calvinists" or "biblical Christians" and they refuse to allow the tag arminianism to be placed upon their view of the atonement.unlimited power. So maybe I will speak of you who take the lower view of the power of the atonement as "Remonstrants." To compare the two views I want to use Heb 9:15..... "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. "

1--- First is the Calvinist position in which the power of the atonement to save is absolute. When Christ (under the New Covenant) shed his blood, and a group of people (past, present, and future) were saved. In the Calvinist view, Christ mediates the New Covenant only for those who were "called" and they "receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
So then, Christ shed his precious blood on the cross, enters the heavenly tabernacle, presents his blood on the heavenly altar, and those "called... recieve the promise of eternal inheritance."

2--- The second group is the people of the Remonstrants. This the group that claims that the atonement somehow relates to the whole world. They suggested that the scope of the shed blood is universal, but deny its power to save absolutely. They seemed to be aware that they viewed the blood of Christ as less powerful to save when they wrote the 2nd article. The specific phrase they wrote is... "yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer" (see article 2 above). So then Christ died, and no one enjoys salvation. Christ shed his blood, but your salvation is only partially dependent on the fact of that shed blood. This view sees the cross work of Christ as universal in scope in that he died for all men, but limited in power to save.
In this view, Christ sheds his blood, presents the blood on the heavenly altar of the New Covenant, and then becomes the intercessor for all mankind based upon that shed blood. The problem is that this intercessory ministry of Christ based upon his shed blood is only partially successful. Christs intercessor ministry is successful based upon the free will decision of men. In this view, it is different then in Calvinism where the efficacy of Christs shed blood is not dependent upon anything in man, but there is a direct and absolute propitiation. Salvation was completely accomplished.

So then, as I asked above in caps. Should not the term "limited atonement" go to the non-Calvinists? In their view the power of the crosswork of Christ to save is limited by the fact that that atonement does not "actually" bring about "forgiveness of sins." If it was "actual" then they would have a doctrine called universalism. So then, Christ shed his blood and no one "actually" got saved. When it comes to the power of the shed blood to save, I stand n the "unlimited atonement" view. There is nothing in man of value that would make God want to apply the atonement to man.


ONE MORE THING
Certainly God is pleased by faith.... Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

That faith which pleases God cannot come from the flesh.....
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Faith is not generated by the evil nature of man, but by the regeneration ministry of the HS. The gospels speak of Christ as the one who has the right to send the HS. Christ was announced by John as the one who will baptize in the HS.... Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
The one who is born of the Spirit, will enter the kingdom.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[HisSheep]

Hi HisSheep.....Nice to meet you.

Are you serious or are you just another Calvinist hater?

I have a question for you if you take the position of the OP.

Do you offer the Gospel to people? Non-believers?

Of course I do… (trying not to be offended by the question.)

If you do....what exactly do you say to them?

As I’m sure you know, different people require different approaches… Are you trying to get me to say that I say, “Jesus loves you†or “Jesus died for you†so you can spring an “Ah- hah!†on me?

We are to spread the gospel… recognizing that the “sons of the devil†will not hear. We are to invite everyone, knowing that only the elect will follow:

Mat 22:14
For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Only the sheep will follow. Why do people not believe? Jesus tells us…

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Thanks, Doc.

Anytime.

P.S. And.....how do you, personally, know that you are one of his sheep?

1 John 2:3-6

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,†but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

This is not to say that I am perfect… but: I can see the dramatic change in myself as a result of my faith. I know that the works I do are not of myself. Even my desire to rid my life of sin is not of myself. I am able to overcome sin that I previously didn’t have any power over…

I know it won’t convince you of my salvation (it’s not intended to), but it sure convinces me.

-HisSheep

 

[smaller]

A QUESTION...... SHOULD NOT THE PHRASE "LIMITED ATONEMENT" BELONG TO NON-CALVINISTS?

It is an interesting quirk of history that we speak of the 5 points of Calvinism. Many can recite them. Yet, in history, they were actually 5 responses to the Remonstrants, and were not thought up in a vacuum. How many know the original 5 articles of the Remonstrants? Yet most of us can recite the 5 points of Calvin. Below is the 2nd article of the 5 on the universal extent and limited power of the atonement.

Five articles of Remonstrance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I wish to contrast two views. Some call it Calvinism and Arminianism. The problem with the term "Arminism" is that most arminians call themselves "modified Calvinists" or "biblical Christians" and they refuse to allow the tag arminianism to be placed upon their view of the atonement.unlimited power. So maybe I will speak of you who take the lower view of the power of the atonement as "Remonstrants." To compare the two views I want to use Heb 9:15..... "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. "

1--- First is the Calvinist position in which the power of the atonement to save is absolute. When Christ (under the New Covenant) shed his blood, and a group of people (past, present, and future) were saved. In the Calvinist view, Christ mediates the New Covenant only for those who were "called" and they "receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
So then, Christ shed his precious blood on the cross, enters the heavenly tabernacle, presents his blood on the heavenly altar, and those "called... recieve the promise of eternal inheritance."

2--- The second group is the people of the Remonstrants. This the group that claims that the atonement somehow relates to the whole world. They suggested that the scope of the shed blood is universal, but deny its power to save absolutely. They seemed to be aware that they viewed the blood of Christ as less powerful to save when they wrote the 2nd article. The specific phrase they wrote is... "yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer" (see article 2 above). So then Christ died, and no one enjoys salvation. Christ shed his blood, but your salvation is only partially dependent on the fact of that shed blood. This view sees the cross work of Christ as universal in scope in that he died for all men, but limited in power to save.
In this view, Christ sheds his blood, presents the blood on the heavenly altar of the New Covenant, and then becomes the intercessor for all mankind based upon that shed blood. The problem is that this intercessory ministry of Christ based upon his shed blood is only partially successful. Christs intercessor ministry is successful based upon the free will decision of men. In this view, it is different then in Calvinism where the efficacy of Christs shed blood is not dependent upon anything in man, but there is a direct and absolute propitiation. Salvation was completely accomplished.

So then, as I asked above in caps. Should not the term "limited atonement" go to the non-Calvinists? In their view the power of the crosswork of Christ to save is limited by the fact that that atonement does not "actually" bring about "forgiveness of sins." If it was "actual" then they would have a doctrine called universalism. So then, Christ shed his blood and no one "actually" got saved. When it comes to the power of the shed blood to save, I stand n the "unlimited atonement" view. There is nothing in man of value that would make God want to apply the atonement to man.


ONE MORE THING
Certainly God is pleased by faith.... Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

That faith which pleases God cannot come from the flesh.....
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Faith is not generated by the evil nature of man, but by the regeneration ministry of the HS. The gospels speak of Christ as the one who has the right to send the HS. Christ was announced by John as the one who will baptize in the HS.... Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
The one who is born of the Spirit, will enter the kingdom.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

And fortunately the early church fathers DID see that God is NOT against doing right and loving works, they being gifts from ABOVE.

Determinists have run headlong into the severe problem in this arena, calling such things as SUPERFLOUS and MEANINGLESS.

IF determinist want to see WHO IS A SHEEP...

then GO LOOK AT SHEEP WORKS in Matt. 25.

And even WORSE is when determinsts condemn other believers, as has been done in this thread. That alone speaks volumes of logical fallacies about such adherents.

One can NOT hold simultaneously to DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY and claim to be the DETERMINER of what that is or consists of.

In this the determinists of common have UTTERLY failed by ascending a throne of PARTIAL SIGHTED DOCTRINES being over DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY and then DAMNING people over such things.

Personally, I wouldn't give 2 CENTS to any believer who thinks that THEY with ADMITTED SIN have any RIGHT to judge any person to eternal damnation based on their doctrinal constructs.

To me this IS A SHAM upon Divine Sovereignty.

God MAY be vastly more SUPERIOR than what such ETERNAL THRONE SITTERS can see or admit to, to which SOME more 'reasoned' members of the Divine Sovereignty camps admit to. (see Karl Barth as an example of SANITY.)

enjoy!

smaller

 

[HisSheep]

Go Mondar!

 

[Strangelove]

Are you serious or are you just another Calvinist hater?

HUH?! I say hello and nice to meet you coz I never talked to you before and I get that in return? What the......?

Calvanist hater? Lolz! I didnt even know what Calvanism was until I read this thread. I read what the OP was saying and it sounded completely and utterly WRONG.

Of course I do… (trying not to be offended by the question.)

As I’m sure you know, different people require different approaches… Are you trying to get me to say that I say, “Jesus loves you†or “Jesus died for you†so you can spring an “Ah- hah!†on me?

We are to spread the gospel… recognizing that the “sons of the devil†will not hear. We are to invite everyone, knowing that only the elect will follow:

Um...no.....what I wanted to ask was do you tell people that theres a good chance that even if they read the Gospels their not gonna have faith and be saved. Do you tell them that they are probably predestined to hell?

Mat 22:14
For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Only the sheep will follow. Why do people not believe? Jesus tells us…

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Ok and the ones who are chosen and are His sheep are the ones who have accepted the Gospel message and have faith. It's every sinners job to gain faith by doing this. It's their choice. God gives us the choice.

Honestly your viewpoint is probably the wackiest doctrine I've seen since joining the forums. It's even nuttier than the pre-tribbers and the law-keeping hebrew roots guys. Worse even (well not more damaging but just nuttier) coz what your arguing doesnt even matter! Lolz. What are you trying to achieve with all this?

1 John 2:3-6

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,†but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

This is not to say that I am perfect… but: I can see the dramatic change in myself as a result of my faith. I know that the works I do are not of myself. Even my desire to rid my life of sin is not of myself. I am able to overcome sin that I previously didn’t have any power over…

I know it won’t convince you of my salvation (it’s not intended to), but it sure convinces me.

-HisSheep

So how d'ya know your not just delusional and THINK that your life has changed but actually your predestined for damnation. And all the while your going around teaching funky doctrine that some (extremely dumb) Christians might believe and......um......well.....it wont actually make much difference to them...so....lolz.....why are you tryin' to teach this again? I can only see this hurting the spreading of the Gospel message to non-believers.

 

[savedbygrace57]

His Sheep:

Mat 22:14
For many are invited, but few are chosen.

Many are called [ National Israel] but few are Chosen[Israel of God] in that Nation..

Just like rom 9:


6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel[Chosen], which are of Israel[called]:

God called the Natural Father of Israel into a Physical Nation, but He also Called[chose] Him to be a Spiritual Father to a Spiritual Nation.

So many in National Israel were called to be part of that Physical nation, but few within it were chosen of God in Christ before the foundation of the world.

 

[Drew]

Man, I don’t know… I’m just saying that in the O.T. God clearly and often describes Himself as sovereign. Isaiah 45 and 46, Psalm 139, etc. He causes all things to happen; good and bad alike. He’s in complete control!

I doubt very much that these texts sustain the view that God is in complete control. Or, at least I doubt very much that these texts clearly show that God is the only "free" agent at work in the universe. At the very beginning of Genesis, we have God "delegating" the task of naming the animals to Adam. So how can one really argue that God is in complete control, at least in the sense that I am talking about.

I have a hard time with any doctrine or interpretation which renders God as less than absolutely almighty. If one holds an interpretation that leaves God getting less than everything He intends… then that interpretation simply can not be correct.

Why? Why can you not believe that God has, for His own perhaps mysterious reasons, elected to vest in mankind some "power" to shape the destiny of the world. I suggest that the Biblical picture is indeed one where God has decided, for whatever reason, to structure the universe so that it only "runs" properly when a human being is in a position of some control. Adam was arguably in such a position. Then Adam falls and creation is without its needed "human" leadership. Then Jesus restores things to the proper order - Jesus "the man" is installed as ruler over all creation.

In any event, I think there really is no Biblical case for the view that God "controls" everything. Perhaps you are not saying this anyway, but some people do hold to such a model.

 

[Strangelove]

I promise that I will later. I have to go vote now.

Hey mlqurgw...did you get to the polling stations in time?

Did you vote?

If so....why did you bother?

One candidate is predestined to win so why would your vote make any difference?

Lolz.

 

[HisSheep]

Sorry Strangelove. I didn't mean to tick you off. I'm just sensitive to people attacking my doctrine. Calling it stupid, evil, etc...

If you've never run into Calvinism and the doctrine of election, you may be unaware of the hailstorm of hate that their mention attracts… forgive my sensitivity.

Fact is - the bible teaches predestination. It is hard to deny this. I know it flies in the face of our understanding. I know it doesn’t seem fair. If it were up to us, we would make a works based system, where the donkey-wholes all go to Hell and the nice guys go to Heaven, but the parable of the prodigal son describes a different scenario.

I know we’d like to think that we determine our own eternal destiny, but the parable of the wheat and tares presents a very different model.

I didn’t begin my Christian walk as a Calvinist, but became one in the process of trying to justify Arminius.

Calvinism isn’t part of evangelism really, but it does give us heart when we are challenged in our evangelism. Ultimately, our imperfect work in evangelism will not cause God to “loose soulsâ€. It is a comfort to the believer that he is not responsible for loosing souls by screwing up in his evangelical efforts.

It is also a great comfort to the believer that God is responsible for the calamities in our lives. He brings the trials for our benefit. The trials pull us closer to God, and remove us from the world. In this way, He is passing us through the refiner’s fire. Christians cheat themselves from great comfort in tribulation by assuming that the pain is not God’s will: That God would stop it if He could – but He’s just not strong enough… or that He could stop it but won’t because he’s just a big meanie.

Also: I believe that all glory is God’s. So, I believe that all good works are God’s. I must get credit for nothing. Jesus didn’t die on the cross to provide a way for me to save myself…. I imagine a Heaven in which all the residents are glad they made the right choice. That would be the difference in the Arminian camp: The difference between those in Heaven and those in Hell would be that some decided wisely, and others poorly. Where is the work of God in that? Did God have any effect on their decision at all?

-HisSheep

 

[Nathan]

nat:

How can His sheep go to hell?

Huh ?? Where did I post that such a thing was even possible ? For its not possible for any of His Sheep to go to hell, so please, do not misrepresent what I have posted sir ? I would appreciate it..

You said;

Thats a False Christ. If anyone believes that lie, that Christ died for everyones sins in the world without exception, you have been deceived, and unless God gives you repentance, you are on your way to hell, forever !

I said;

But wont those who are called be made to repent? If they are not, then does that not make the call of God ineffective according to your view? You say "unless". How can His sheep go to hell? Do you not see the confusion you make with this statement?

It is you who are misrepresenting me. I asked a question, not put forth the idea that you said it. The question mark at the end dictates a question, not a statement.

You still have not answered my question about the book of life. Do you not know? Are the Old Covenant sheep's names entered into the book of life for the same reason the New Covenant sheep's names are entered? Are you avoiding this question?

 

[Nathan]

nat



Which was perfect them He died for. Heb 10:

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

And sanctified them He died for. heb 10:

10By the which will we are sanctified , sanctified is in the perfect tense here, and it applies to the we, which is the subject of the verb sanctified.

Them that are being sanctified...

If your not being sanctified, your not being sanctified.

 

[savedbygrace57]

his sheep:

Calvinism isn’t part of evangelism really, but it does give us heart when we are challenged in our evangelism. Ultimately, our imperfect work in evangelism will not cause God to “loose soulsâ€. It is a comfort to the believer that he is not responsible for loosing souls by screwing up in his evangelical efforts.

Yes, what the religious world does not understand, is that evangelism for the salvation of Gods People, those whom Christ became a sin offering for, that their conversion and coming to Glory is His responsibility.

The pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His Hands Isa 53:

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

The word pleasure is the hebrew word:

chephets and means:

delight, pleasure

a) delight
b) desire, longing
c) the good pleasure
d) that in which one takes delight
, purpose

His will of good pleasure.

Now the will and pleasure of God is for all to be saved and come into the Knowledge of the Truth 1 tim 2:


4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The word will here is thelo and means:

to take delight in, have pleasure

So, Christ days were prolonged, His resurrection and now seated on the right hand of God, to continue in the prospering of His Fathers pleasure.

The all men that God the father wants to be saved and come into the Knowledge of the Truth, will prosper in His Hands,

Remember, the Lord added to the church those being saved acts 2:

47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

We, those He is pleased to use as to evangelize, are just instruments in His Hand to accomplish what He is doing in the pleasure of the Lord prospering in His hands..

Can you see what I am saying here ?

 

[mondar]

Hey mlqurgw...did you get to the polling stations in time?

Did you vote?

If so....why did you bother?

One candidate is predestined to win so why would your vote make any difference?

Lolz.

Because there is also human responsibility. It is a strawman that Calvinist do not believe in human responsibility.

 

[Nathan]

So have ALL mankind sinned? Or just the 'elect', the 'chosen' ones of God?

 

[mondar]

Go Mondar!

And I appreciate your comments and SBG57.

 

[smaller]

And I appreciate your comments and SBG57.

Would you like to set your agreement with sbg57, that any believer/denomination who does not believe like 'you guys' are going to hell forever???

False Christ's

The False Christs here means, the different denominations saying we serve and witness of the True Christ. Also the false Christ, is that Christ that is presented that He loved of all of humanity, and died for all of humanity without exception, to give them a chance at getting saved.

Thats a False Christ. If anyone believes that lie, that Christ died for everyones sins in the world without exception, you have been deceived, and unless God gives you repentance, you are on your way to hell, forever !

By all means, show your cards.

!!??

 

[mondar]

So have ALL mankind sinned? Or just the 'elect', the 'chosen' ones of God?

Obviously you believe in the natural neutrality of the nature of man. I observe this because you say mankind merely "sinned." We did not only sin in the fall of Adam, we were made sinners.

To answer you question, in Romans 5, the word "pas" (all) is used of ---all in Adam--- and --- all in Christ ---. The whole human race is part of the "all in adam." The whole group of the elect are those "all in Christ."

A little exposition is in order.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: -
***** The text is not saying "through one man sins entered into the world." It is saying that by one man sin entered. This speaks of the nature of man. After the fall, we were rebels by nature. Part of Adams curse was that when he did the first of the sins, he would die. So as death is passed to all mankind, so also the sn nature is passed to all mankind.

Rom 5:15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
***** The gift does not abound to all, but to the many. It abounds to all "in Christ" but that is not all mankind.

Rom 5:16 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.
Rom 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.
***** The gift to the many (elect) who are in Christ is unto justification. This group is saved.
***** In verse 17, they that receive the "abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness" are in the group "through the one, even Jesus Christ. We are "in Christ" in this verse. It is important to understand the concept of "in Christ" in verse 17 so that we understand the next verses.

Rom 5:18 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.
***** The error many make in this verse is that the look at the word "all" and say that the word "all" must mean all are sinners, therefore the word "all" must mean that the atonement is applied to each and every man. The problem with this reading is that the term "all" is defined by the two groups "in Adam" and "in Christ." See the previous two verses.
***** So then, are all in Christ justified in verse 18? Yes! All are justified. To interpret the word "all" in verse 18 as always referring to "all mankind" would definitely be a universalism. The last phrase says "unto all men unto justification." You cannot focus on the word "all" without justification. So then the only two possible readings are the Calvinist, and universalism. Because the context in verses 16-17 define the terms all as referring to groups (in Adam---in Christ) I will opt for the Calvinist view that the "all justifed" refers to the group in Christ and that all is limited in extent.

Rom 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.
***** Again, notice the book ends of "many be made righteous." The many are "all in Christ."

CONCLUSION---- The concept of "all" (pas) does not always mean all mankind. It can mean all of a certain group. As an illustration--- Caesar Augustus decreed that "all the world would be taxed." How much tax did the Romans charge the Chinese? When John the Baptist was at the Jordan, "all Jerusalem and Judea" came to hear John. Does this mean when he spoke there was not a man, woman, infant, elderly person, or anyone left in all Judea? Of course not. The word "all" (pas) can mean all kinds of people, or all of a group, or all mankind. Only context will determine the meaning.

 

[HisSheep]

We, those He is pleased to use as to evangelize, are just instruments in His Hand to accomplish what He is doing in the pleasure of the Lord prospering in His hands..

Can you see what I am saying here ?

Yes sir. Well said.

-HisSheep