While it is true that the Bible teaches “There is no one righteous, not even one” the context here is more limited because it’s focus is narrowed to the “many”. As Greek Lexicons and the NIV at 1 Ti 6:10 show, “all” can mean “all kinds of” as in all kinds of evil. All doesn’t mean every single individual in this context. It refers to “many”. The passage is saying that the “many” (Jews and Gentiles) who will be made righteous by Christ’s obedience used to be in Adam. That is, the very same people (All kinds of people - Jews and Gentiles) who will be made righteous by Christ’s obedience were made sinners by Adam’s trespass. Christ died for His sheep only. They are the one’s chosen by grace in this lifetime. The goats will undergo the corrective punishment in hell in the next age. All will eventually make it. For God is the savior of all people. ESPECIALLY of them that believe.
Yes, blessed and Holy are those who don’t see him, and believe in him, and never hardening their hearts.
Actually according to the literary structure of the passage the “many” does not limit the “all”, but is used as a contrast to the “one”.
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Notice the parallelism between all and many.
How many were made sinners by the disobedience of the “one”? All/many.
How many will be made righteous by the obedience of the “One”? All/many.
The “many” is not meant to limit the “all”, but to magnify the “all”. The “all” are “many”, not some.
The sacrifice of Christ (the obedience of the one) is far greater than the sin of Adam (the disobedience of one). Adam’s sin had universal effect upon all humanity, plunging humanity into death! The only way for the sacrifice of Christ to be greater than the sin of Adam is for it to at least have universal effect, bringing humanity into life! It is greater than Adam’s sin though in that it not only overcame the root problem, Adam’s sin, but it also overcame all of our subsequent sins, not some but all, not one but many!
Calvinism (Augustinianism) and Arminianism both radically limit the Atonement, minimizing the sacrifice of Christ! Calvinism minimizes the atonement in scope (Jesus only died for some). Arminianism minimizes the atonement in power (Jesus’ death does not fully save anyone, we must also choose rightly).
I think it’s pretty obvious the same “many” and “all” are being talked about in comparison here. There would be no point to disassociating two different types of “many” or “all” without clarifying that in the first part of the sentence Paul is talking about partial set A of X and in the second part of the sentence Paul is talking about partial set B of X.
If all and many are partial sets, they’re the same partial sets. Maybe not everyone were made sinners and condemned by disobedience of one man (small children and other mental incompetents, plus the special case of Christ Himself), but the totality of that partial set is who Paul is talking about in both clauses of both sentences: set A of X in both cases. Christ comes to save the sick, not those who are healthy.
If all eventually make it, for God is the savior of all people (especially of them that believe), that is because Christ died for the baby goats, too, the least of His flock, not only for the mature flock. Paul is clear about that in Colossians, God is pleased to reconcile all things to Himself (where “reconcile” just as clearly refers to rebels against God as Paul goes on to use the term shortly afterward), whether things in the heavens or things in the earth. The all things made through and by Christ may include things that don’t need reconciliation, but it does include all things needing reconciliation, not only many kinds of things (otherwise Paul would be saying some things were not made by and through Christ and do not continue to hold together by Christ).
The distinction in Romans 5 isn’t between those who Christ died for and those He did not (as the Calvinists would have it), nor between those whom Christ will succeed in saving from sin into righteousness and those He will not eventually succeed in saving into righteousness (as the Arminians would have it), but between those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift and those who do not receive it (v.17). So long as someone doesn’t receive the gift, they don’t have it. That doesn’t mean God isn’t trying to give them the gift, nor that God will finally fail in giving them the gift. For not as the sin is the grace: if by the transgression of the one the many have died, much more did the freely given joy (the grace, the free gift) of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. For on the one hand the judgment arose from one to condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions to an act of righteousness.
Paul may not strictly say back in verses 8ff that Christ died for all sinners, but he means all sinners afterward when talking about the action and salvation in Christ. People are saved from the wrath of God now, and later, but either way it’s through being saved from our sins, and thus reconciled to God (for we cannot be reconciled to God so long as we rebel against God), and Christ reconciles us to God making peace through the blood of the cross.
No one makes it, now or later, without coming through the blood of the cross, which is another way of saying that no one makes it without God acting self-sacrificially, in freely given joy (or {charis}), toward them making it.
Those lexicons after all also say that sometimes “the many” can mean “all”. In this case grace abounds to all the many who sin, even to those who die.
As Dr. Pipa has pointed out “all” can mean “all types” or “classes” but “many” never means “all”. It always means “many”
Michael,
How is it that those who “undergo the corrective punishment in hell…will eventually make it” ??
If Jesus Christ did nothing for them, then do they “make it” on their own merits?
How do they become holy? How are their natures changed from being sinners to being righteous? What promise has God given them of eternal life? What covenant has God made with them? If they are not connected to Christ, wherein have they any hope of continued blessedness?
Dan.
When the “many” were made sinners by the one transgression, is that not “all”?
Michael,
I know don’t who Dr. Pipa is, or what lexicon you think supports your view, but as I’ve told you on this limited atonement debate before, these controversies will not be solved by citing one’s preferred ‘authorities.’ I’ve cited scholars who completely differ with you on this, and that makes no difference to you either. But it seems to me that different views on lexical questions can only be fruitfully advanced by discussing the actual use of terms in the relevant texts, as several have done above in their response to you. As I’ve answered you before, I can’t find any cases where Paul uses pas, even hyperbolically, in the way you have defined I (as some from all groups).
Bob,
The Lexicons give one of the definitions in the translations for pas as “all kinds” or “every kind”. It is clear to the scholars that “all” can mean “all kinds of”:
Matthew 25 makes it clear that there are sheep and there are goats. The sheep are the ones Christ died for:
He didn’t just die for the Jews but the Gentiles as well. All people from the whole world. Not every individual:
The Greek word for “many” always means “many” and never “all”
For as in Adam All die, and in Christ All will be made alive.
Michael,
You’re response above is begging the question.
Paul is arguing from Adam to Christ. He is saying that what is true in manner with Adam (one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people), is also true in the manner with Christ (one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people). Thus, we find out who the “all” attached to Christ are based on the “all” attached to Adam.
On the contrary, your interpretation completely reverses Paul’s argument. Instead of arguing from Adam to Christ (as did the apostle), you argue from Christ back to Adam. You make the assumption (question begging) that the “all” related to Christ must be “all types of people” therefore the “all” related to Adam must be “all types of people.” By reversing Paul’s argument you beg the question by arguing from the conclusion back to the premise.
You also say that “all” refers to “the many”. That is backward as well. Simple grammar rules say that the antecedent of “the many” is “all.”
“For from him, and through him, and to him are all things.”
Every good thing that came from God through Christ will return to God, through Christ.
It couldn’t be plainer.
Michael,
My whole point was, sure, your view is clear to some authorities, and the opposite is clear to other authorities. So when we each cite our dueling authorities, all we have is a stalemate. You must address the data of the Biblical texts themselves, or all you are doing is declaring which view you prefer.