Does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all men without exception ?

[Brightfame52]

Rom 5:18

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.

No by no means does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all without exception, just because the word all is used. In fact, to the spiritually discerning it teaches the contrary, it teaches the limited atonement, or that Christ did not die for all men without exception, simply because the all men here that Justification of life came upon is limited to only some men, so the word all can only apply to all that received upon them Justification of life.

For its clear from other scripture that all men without exception are Justified before God, for instance Matt 5:45

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Acts 24:15

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

1 Cor 6:1

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Pet 2:9

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:

Rev 22:11

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.

Now the word unjust does mean being found guilty before God, in Gods court of law,

describes being found guilty in God's court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution,
unjust, unrighteous, wicked.of one who breaks God's laws, unrighteous, sinful,

So basically its one God reckons guilty before Him as a law beaker.

 

[Ben1445]

Rom 5:18

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.

No by no means does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all without exception, just because the word all is used. In fact, to the spiritually discerning it teaches the contrary, it teaches the limited atonement, or that Christ did not die for all men without exception, simply because the all men here that Justification of life came upon is limited to only some men, so the word all can only apply to all that received upon them Justification of life.

For its clear from other scripture that all men without exception are Justified before God, for instance Matt 5:45

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Acts 24:15

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

1 Cor 6:1

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Pet 2:9

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:

Rev 22:11

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.

Now the word unjust does mean being found guilty before God, in Gods court of law,

describes being found guilty in God's court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution,
unjust, unrighteous, wicked.of one who breaks God's laws, unrighteous, sinful,

So basically its one God reckons guilty before Him as a law beaker.

If I make a cake for a birthday party is it for all at the birthday party? Is it not intended for all? If someone doesn’t want it, does that change who it was intended for?
Yes, it is just an illustration.
Where does this idea that the gift of God is mandatory, come from? That the invitation of Christ is mandatory? That the working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible?
If you believe Scripture on these issues, that the gift of God can be refused, that Christ’s invitation can be denied, that the Holy Spirit can be resisted, it is not hard at all to see that the gift is to all men and refused by many.

 

[Silverhair]

Rom 5:18

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.

No by no means does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all without exception, just because the word all is used. In fact, to the spiritually discerning it teaches the contrary, it teaches the limited atonement, or that Christ did not die for all men without exception, simply because the all men here that Justification of life came upon is limited to only some men, so the word all can only apply to all that received upon them Justification of life.

For its clear from other scripture that all men without exception are Justified before God, for instance Matt 5:45

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Acts 24:15

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

1 Cor 6:1

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Pet 2:9

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:

Rev 22:11

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.

Now the word unjust does mean being found guilty before God, in Gods court of law,

describes being found guilty in God's court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution,
unjust, unrighteous, wicked.of one who breaks God's laws, unrighteous, sinful,

So basically its one God reckons guilty before Him as a law beaker.

Once again BF you have missed what we are being told because you disregarded context. [Romans 5:12-21]

What was Adam’s sin? Disobedience. [Genesis 2:15-16; Genesis 3:6, Genesis 3:17]. All mankind has a sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin [Romans 3:23].
As a result of his [Adam's] sin, human death and spiritual separation from God entered the world. This became the common lot of all Adam's descendants. [Romans 5:13-14] even over those who had not sinned as Adam had.

What was Christ’s righteousness? Obedience, by which he obeyed the Father in his incarnation [Philippians 2:8.]

Paul made it very clear that the "all" who died in Adam is the same "all" who can be made alive in Christ.
This salvation cannot be universal, however, because that would be untrue to our experience. So obviously that free gift did not equate to salvation for all men. But like the judgment, it came. God justifies those that freely placed their faith [Romans 3:25] in the finished work of Jesus the Christ. [Romans 3:26]

Contextually, {Romans 5:12-21} we can see that justification is contingent on faith, while the provision of justification for all (through faith) is as universal as the problem of sin and condemnation, in the same way as Romans 11:32 states that God desires to have mercy on the same “all” that have been bound to disobedience. That certainly includes everyone.

Christ’s gift to us is far greater than Adam’s sin, but it does not automatically extend to everyone. [Romans 3:26]

 

[Brightfame52]

If I make a cake for a birthday party is it for all at the birthday party? Is it not intended for all? If someone doesn’t want it, does that change who it was intended for?
Yes, it is just an illustration.
Where does this idea that the gift of God is mandatory, come from? That the invitation of Christ is mandatory? That the working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible?
If you believe Scripture on these issues, that the gift of God can be refused, that Christ’s invitation can be denied, that the Holy Spirit can be resisted, it is not hard at all to see that the gift is to all men and refused by many.

Huh ? Where did all this come from ? The all of Rom 5:18b have been given Justification of life. All men are not justified Some are unjust on their way to hell 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.

See that ? He that has not been Justified by Christ Rom 5:18b must remain that way. "let him be unjust still" is a imperative, a command, he wont be getting any invites to the party lol

 

[Brightfame52]

Once again BF you have missed what we are being told because you disregarded context. [Romans 5:12-21]

What was Adam’s sin? Disobedience. [Genesis 2:15-16; Genesis 3:6, Genesis 3:17]. All mankind has a sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin [Romans 3:23].
As a result of his [Adam's] sin, human death and spiritual separation from God entered the world. This became the common lot of all Adam's descendants. [Romans 5:13-14] even over those who had not sinned as Adam had.

What was Christ’s righteousness? Obedience, by which he obeyed the Father in his incarnation [Philippians 2:8.]

Paul made it very clear that the "all" who died in Adam is the same "all" who can be made alive in Christ.
This salvation cannot be universal, however, because that would be untrue to our experience. So obviously that free gift did not equate to salvation for all men. But like the judgment, it came. God justifies those that freely placed their faith [Romans 3:25] in the finished work of Jesus the Christ. [Romans 3:26]

Contextually, {Romans 5:12-21} we can see that justification is contingent on faith, while the provision of justification for all (through faith) is as universal as the problem of sin and condemnation, in the same way as Romans 11:32 states that God desires to have mercy on the same “all” that have been bound to disobedience. That certainly includes everyone.

Christ’s gift to us is far greater than Adam’s sin, but it does not automatically extend to everyone. [Romans 3:26]

You disregarding scripture truth in the context. Thats what context are inspiried by God for, to find His Truth

 

[Silverhair]

Huh ? Where did all this come from ? The all of Rom 5:18b have been given Justification of life. All men are not justified Some are unjust on their way to hell 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.

See that ? He that has not been Justified by Christ Rom 5:18b must remain that way. "let him be unjust still" is a imperative, a command, he wont be getting any invites to the party lol

As for usual you just ignore context BF. As long as you continue to do that you will not understand the word of God.

 

[Brightfame52]

As for usual you just ignore context BF. As long as you continue to do that you will not understand the word of God.

As usual you ignore what the context has in it, a nugget of truth

 

[Silverhair]

You disregarding scripture truth in the context. Thats what context are inspiried by God for, to find His Truth

You say that BF but where is your contextual response.

Here is your chance BF the context is [Romans 5:12-21].

 

[Silverhair]

As usual you ignore what the context has in it, a nugget of truth

Still no support for our position. You talk a big game BF. Your all hat and no cattle.

 

[Brightfame52]

You say that BF but where is your contextual response.

Here is your chance BF the context is [Romans 5:12-21].

Thats your great contradiction, you ignoring scripture with the excuse that its coming out of scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

Still no support for our position. You talk a big game BF. Your all hat and no cattle.

Ignoring scripture because it comes from scripture

 

[Silverhair]

Ignoring scripture because it comes from scripture

BF you make claims but when questioned on them you turtle because you can not support your claims.

It's time for you to put up a defense or fold your tent and steal of into the dark.

 

[JonC]

Yes, Christ died for all men without exception (to borrow from John Calvin) or the whole human family (to borrow from the Early Church).

And yes, Christ died to save those who would believe.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF you make claims but when questioned on them you turtle because you can not support your claims.

It's time for you to put up a defense or fold your tent and steal of into the dark.

You ignore scripture all the time for coming out of scripture. All scripture is made up of several different contexts. So when its convenient for you, you holler, it says that but its in another context, but yet its in the context of scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

You ignore scripture all the time for coming out of scripture. All scripture is made up of several different contexts. So when its convenient for you, you holler, it says that but its in another context, but yet its in the context of scripture.

BF you still will not respond to the text that shows your obvious error.

Using other verses to support a view is logical but they have to be contextual not just out of context words.

You started this by your claim "No by no means does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all without exception, just because the word all is used."

I used the context Rom 5:12-21 to show your view is wrong.

You disagree but have yet to show why what I said is wrong.

So I am not ignoring scripture BF, I am using scripture to show that your view is wrong.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF you still will not respond to the text that shows your obvious error.

Using other verses to support a view is logical but they have to be contextual not just out of context words.

You started this by your claim "No by no means does Rom 5:18 teach that Christ died for all without exception, just because the word all is used."

I used the context Rom 5:12-21 to show your view is wrong.

You disagree but have yet to show why what I said is wrong.

So I am not ignoring scripture BF, I am using scripture to show that your view is wrong.

You give yourself a convenient out of believing scripture. And yeah I know the context of Rom 5:1-21 thats where I found Rom 5:18 duh which you reject

 

[Silverhair]

You give yourself a convenient out of believing scripture. And yeah I know the context of Rom 5:1-21 thats where I found Rom 5:18 duh which you reject

Come on BF you know that the context Rom 5:12-21 does not support your view but you just cannot admit it.

BF saying the obvious that Rom 5:18 is in Rom 5:12-21 does not support your misuse of Rom 5:18 to teach your faulty religion.

By your logic BF we can say that Israel had a special God which was different from the one in heaven. The words are right there in the context of the bible.
1Ki_8:23 He said, "O LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing lovingkindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart,

 

[Brightfame52]

Come on BF you know that the context Rom 5:12-21 does not support your view but you just cannot admit it.

BF saying the obvious that Rom 5:18 is in Rom 5:12-21 does not support your misuse of Rom 5:18 to teach your faulty religion.

By your logic BF we can say that Israel had a special God which was different from the one in heaven. The words are right there in the context of the bible.
1Ki_8:23 He said, "O LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing lovingkindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart,

All you do is argue against scripture, when someone shows you a scripture that point blanks contradicts your beliefs, you conveniently say, oh that's not the context. You act like everyone who shows a scripture its required to give a chapter summary or something. If they do, you not going to believe it either way. If you expect me to give you a chapter and book survey every time I show you a verse, you will be waiting forever

 

[Silverhair]

All you do is argue against scripture, when someone shows you a scripture that point blanks contradicts your beliefs, you conveniently say, oh that's not the context. You act like everyone who shows a scripture its required to give a chapter summary or something. If they do, you not going to believe it either way. If you expect me to give you a chapter and book survey every time I show you a verse, you will be waiting forever

BF you are just digging a deeper hole by your continued refusal to address the total context Rom 5:12-21.

You have picked a verse Rom 5:18 out and misused it to support your view but the context does not do that. You say it does so prove it by dealing with the what is written in Rom 5:12-21.

The more you refuse the more evident it is that you cannot as it does not support your view.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF you are just digging a deeper hole by your continued refusal to address the total context Rom 5:12-21.

You have picked a verse Rom 5:18 out and misused it to support your view but the context does not do that. You say it does so prove it by dealing with the what is written in Rom 5:12-21.

The more you refuse the more evident it is that you cannot as it does not support your view.

Im just giving you scripture and you resist