Featured Does ALL mean ALL or not ALL

Lets back up a bit here and discuss what "all" means. "All" refers to what the author intended to convey. So if I am playing a game of marbles, and say I am going for all the marbles, what is actually being said is all the marbles within the circle, i.e. the ones in view and available for the taking. To say, what I meant was all the marbles in existence in the universe is simply nonsense.

So using the "what is in view" limit for the scope of "all" lets look at the passage.

In Romans 5:12, Paul is saying through one man (Adam) sin entered the world. So our first question, what world? The huge rock hung in space, or fallen mankind? So death spread to all men. How did death spread? Physical death or spiritual death? Adam did not die physically when he ate the fruit, but he did die spiritually, i.e. he was separated from the living God. So using that understanding then spiritual death spread to all mankind because Adam spiritually died by being separated from God. Note the death did not spread by physical sexual means, for Eve also died, i.e. was separated from God too. Now as each human is conceived in iniquity, they too are conceived in a separated from God spiritual state, even though they have done nothing good or bad.

Next, we must consider the meaning of sin. Is it an act, something we think or do that misses the mark, or might it also be used to express the debt created by volitional sin. Thus to say all men, meaning all mankind, sinned or have sinned means either they committed some volitional sin, or they have been condemned and put under the same circumstance as if they had volitionally sinned. Thus, one option in understanding this difficult passage is that mankind was put in a separated from God sinful state because the consequence of Adam's spiritual death was applied to them in that they were conceived in a spiritually dead separated from God sinful state.

So even though we are conceived having done nothing good or bad and therefore have not sinned in the same manner as Adam we have sinned in that the consequence of Adam's sin has been applied to us.

Now the next point, that the "all" have sinned refers to all mankind, and the "all" who have justification abound to them also refers to all mankind. But the striking difference is the condemnation has been applied at conception, but the justification is only applied to those God spiritually places in Christ. Thus we are spiritually dead in a separated from God state, and we receive the justification of life, i.e. we are made alive when we are united with Christ. One sin put mankind in the boat, but our many sins are justified when God transfers us from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ.

This is my understanding of Romans 5:12-19. All means all mankind here, but in the case of being made sinners, the condemnation has been applied, but in the case of being made righteous, to opportunity is available to all mankind, but it is only applied when God elects to put us spiritually in Christ.

 

The all in Christ.....are the elect of God....The Covenant people Jesus died for....once for all time.No more...No less...

 

And I would disagree with Van's interpretation of the 5th chapter of Romans. The verses from 12-19 are written so that they both contrast, and are parallel at the same time. If Adam's sin and death by sin is unconditionally imputed all men as many teach, then righteousness would also be unconditionally imputed to all men. But we know righteousness is not unconditionally imputed to all men, but is conditional upon believing and trusting God as Jesus trusted God when he gave up the ghost and commended his spirit into God's hands. Condemnation is also conditional, when we willfully and knowingly sin as Adam did spiritual death is imputed to us.

Both Paul and Jesus spoke of being "alive". If a person is born dead in sin, this could never be said.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Twice Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again". This could never be said if we are born dead in sin separated from God as Calvinism (and Van) teach.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. He could not be speaking of physical death here but spiritual. If we are all born dead in sin because of Adam, it could never be said that we were alive once. The only reasonable and practical explanation to this passage is that Paul is speaking of being a child, having no knowledge between good and evil (Deu 1:39, Isa 7:16, Jon 4:11). When Paul matured and understood the law, he was convicted of his sins and spiritually died. So spiritual death is conditional, when we knowingly and willfully sin just as Adam did.

We are not born separated from God in sin as Van falsely teaches.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said we were as sheep going astray. You must first be in the flock to go astray. Peter said we are now "returned" to Jesus, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.

If we are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it could never be said we are "returned" to Jesus, but that is exactly what scripture teaches.

Augustine misinterpreted Romans 5:12 because he used a flawed Latin text. The eastern church that used only Greek texts NEVER agreed with Augustine's interpretation that we are born dead in Adam's sin. The scriptures do not teach we are born dead in sin to the careful student of God's word.

In Romans 5 "all" means all adult men and women, but it is not speaking of babies and very little children who do not understand between good and evil before God.

 

Hi HisWitness, Calvinism claims Christ's sacrifice resulted in justification of life to all [elect]men. Not how it reads.

Some Christians deny that the consequence of Adam's sin, separation from God, was applied to all men.

But read our passage and judge for yourself.

 

Hi Van,

There is evidence in the Hebrew text that physical death began the very day they ate of the fruit.

According to the text, physical death is a process that has a state of being at the culmination.

To be forthright not all agree but it is a very strong grammatical argument.

If you get bit by a rabid animal, unless you have the rabies vaccine within a day or two you will surely die.
Not immediately but it is the inevitable outcome of the rabies virus infection.

What the Hebrew text literally says muth t'moth or "to die you will".

"Death" is used twice here (not reflected by most translations) - the infinitive of "to die" - muth - followed by the imperfect (incompleted action) - tmoth - (death will happen).

Here is how it is expressed in several different translations:

Young's Literal Translation: Genesis 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'​

The American Bible: Genesis 2:17 except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.​

The New Living Translation: Genesis 2:17 except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."​

The New Jerusalem Bible: Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die.'​

I believe that in the idiom of the KJV Jacobean-Elizabethan period English this is the force of the KJV - by reason of the use of the word "surely", not that they would die physically that very day but that the process would begin that very day and it would culminate in that physical state of being.

Other Examples:

Genesis 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.​

Numbers 26:65 For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.​

2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.​

HankD​

 

The reason you and winman cannot come to truth here is plain in this post.

Hint and explanation;

Non elect persons are not justified....ever.They perish in Adam.
Only the Covenant people are justified In Christ. The cross is effectual for the ALL in Christ........ALL in Adam DIE. YOu two offering false teaching over and over does not change a thing.:wavey:

 

"Does all mean All or not All"....it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

Well, for once you got it correct and said in Adam all "die". You used to teach pure error and said that in Adam all were dead. Minor miracle.

It is you that will NEVER come to the truth. You wouldn't know truth if it walked up to you and introduced itself.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Jesus himself said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN in Luke 15. Jesus knows doctrine better than you or Augustine. If a person is born dead in sin as you falsely teach, then it could never be said that a person is alive again, but that is exactly what Jesus said TWICE.

Those who truly desire to know truth will discern who is telling the truth and who is teaching falsehood.

 

IMO, Jesus was teaching the second birth in this parable (and please remember it is a parable).

To be "alive again" one would have to be "born again".

Here's another IMO:

IMO, Everyone involved in this "debate" has come to the truth, but with different points of view concerning the truth.

HankD

 

Hi HankD, I agree that the "muth thmuth" literally would be translated dying you shall die. A spiritually dead person is dying and unless made alive spiritually they will face the second death. Here are the verses that contain the Hebrew "muth thmuth." I think the idea is sustaining a mortal wound, and being under the sentence of death, as in the modern phrase, dead man walking.

Genesis 2:17, 20:7
1 Sam. 14:44, 22:16
1 Kings 2:37, 2:42,
2 Kings 1:4,1:6, 1:16,
Ezek. 3:18, 33:8, 33:14.

 

Jesus did not say the prodigal was alive "for the first time", which would be the case if we are born dead in sin as many teach. Jesus said he was alive "again". This means the boy was alive before he went out in sin and died. This is very simple and straightforward, any child could easily understand it. In fact, it is difficult to explain away.

In all three parables in Luke 15, which Jesus explains clearly as speaking of lost sinners (and not backsliders as some teach), none were originally lost. Jesus clearly explains the lost sheep was not originally lost, but in the flock with the other 99 sheep. The sheep became lost and the shepherd searched and recovered it.

It was the same with the woman. She originally had ten pieces of silver. One was lost, she searched diligently and recovered it. Again Jesus explains this lost coin is a sinner who repents, not a believer who backslides.

Then Jesus clearly tells us the father originally had two sons, the prodigal left his home and went out in sin and became lost. When he repented, twice Jesus said he was alive "again".

All three parables are plain as day, none show a person originally lost and separated from God as Calvinism teaches. No, Jesus showed that a sinner is not originally lost but becomes lost later.

This agrees with all scripture, especially 1 Peter 2:25 I have showed many times.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

The scripture is plain and unmistakable, Peter shows we are like sheep who go astray, just as Jesus described in Luke 15. You must first be in the flock to go astray. When we repent we are RETURNED to Jesus. Words have meaning, you could not return to God if you were born separated from him.

You can make fun, call me heretic, whatever, scripture clearly supports my view and refutes yours. Anyone who is honest will admit this.

You can cling to Augustine's error if you wish, I will believe the scriptures.

 

:applause::applause::applause: Correct....you have the correct biblical position here.....because you do not try and twist parables to fit an agenda of resisting biblical truth.

 

The son apparently was never in a harmonious relationship with his father.
He left, he "returned" with a whole new prospectus having been made "alive again".

Putting the "parable" (put along side of) up against the human experience:

The son typifies the "normal" religious adamic human being departing from his religion and god only to suffer the conviction of sin from the Holy Spirit and "returning" to the true and living God.

After all it is a parable. You have your interpretation others have theirs.

BTW, personally I have never called you a heretic but have always considered you a brother in the Lord. Also, I don't cling to Augustine's interpretation of original sin.

RE: 1 Peter 2:5 IMO, Peter is addressing the "circumcision", - Hebrews having been estranged via persecution and driven from the land and the covenant promise to Abraham and not primarily to an individual call to salvation as in the case of the gentiles, although both indeed needed the second birth.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;​

Now, they need not be in the "the land" but "in the Lord" to rejoice in the promise to Abraham who sought a city not built with hands.​

HankD​

 

Of course, but winman's view is that we are not born that way.

I could agree to a point in that God does not hold us individually responsible for that condition until we prove it (and each and every one of us will) by putting our stamp of approval on what we are by willful sin.

All the supporting verses he claims are misapplied e.g. (in sin did my mother conceive me, etc...). But we do the same with his passages.

So, we are in a stalemate with this doctrine (as many other doctrines debated here). On either side it may or may not indicate a slavery to the traditions of men, although that is entirely possible.

I believe for myself it's a matter of sincere choice (prayer, meditation and earnest seeking assumed). I presume the same for winman.


HankD

 

I disagree

To say we "misapply" the verses Winman cites is without foundation.

God does not hold us individually responsible for the condition of being made sinners. No verse will be forthcoming to support this misapplication of scripture. John 3:18 says we are condemned already because of unbelief. Therefore when we are conceived in iniquity, and are therefore by nature children of wrath, because we have not obtained mercy through faith in the truth, we are condemned already individually.

Does scripture really say "returned" as in having left individually a union with God? Nope, the word translated returned simply means a change in direction, i.e. from going away from God to turning toward God. Thus the whole premise is without foundation in scripture. Anyone can rewrite the meaning of words and then claim doctrinal support as Winman does here.

 

I get the impression that the prodigal son regarded life on the farm with his father as rather boring. He was also impatient, you are supposed to wait for your inheritance, he wanted it NOW. This is a person who wants immediate gratification, who does not want to wait by faith to receive future promises.

I see it as a young person rebelling against what they are taught by their parents and going out into the world of sin.

That doesn't mean you can interpret it any way you wish, all parables reflect truth. Jesus said the boy was "alive again", so obviously he was alive before he went out in sin and became "lost and dead" as Jesus said TWICE. Jesus knows correct doctrine and would not call somebody ALIVE unless he meant it.

Well, there are many here who have never had an original thought in their life and simply parrot the teachings of others.

Peter was describing believers, he said we were as sheep going astray, just as Jesus described a sinner as a sheep going astray in Luke 15. Words have meaning, to go astray means that a person was originally in the flock and then left. You cannot go astray or run away from home unless you are first in your home, just as the prodigal son was first in his father's home. The woman did not have nine coins, she had TEN coins. In all three stories Jesus did not show sinners as originally lost as the doctrine of Original Sin teaches. If folks choose to overlook this fact, that is their privilege, I do not choose to overlook this important fact.

Then Peter says we are RETURNED to Jesus. Again, words have meaning, if we are born separated from God, then it would not be possible to return to God. You cannot return someplace you have never been.

I know we disagree. I thank you that you do not make insulting statements like Iconoclast. I can at least talk to someone like you, THANK YOU.

 

I understand your point of view and perhaps (just perhaps) you are correct. Obviously I have a different point of view .

It's easy to slip into a fleshy response, I've done it, we have all done it.

Let's hope/pray for the better, no the best.

HankD

 

Oh, I think deep down you KNOW I am correct. So do others. That said, I do not expect anyone to openly admit it, it is a huge step, you will become a PARIAH.

 

Winman,

I do not insult you personally Winman///but I do see your attacks upon truth as needing to be openly opposed,and I will oppose your setting forth of error each time it comes up....like i oppose Zara...saying Jesus is not God.


I notice you do the same as you believe I am in error when you post this kind of thing.:

I do not take offence at it as you actually oppose yourself in not welcoming truth.Do not whine and play the victim when you have a non stop agenda repeating your errors on rom 7:9 eccl7 and the parables.

When I post and you attack....I know the attack is coming so I wait until you want to get serious about looking at the verses. I am afraid that that day might not come.

No one believes what you post on the verses historically, at least not any in the historic church.