Does Romans 3:23-25 contradict limited atonement?

[J&BC]

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." -Romans 3:23-25

Most Calvinist seem to claim that the "all" in Romans 3:23 means "all without exception" as it is a major proof text for total depravity. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," -Romans 3:23.

But if applied to the second half of the sentence continued in verses 24 and 25 than doesn't it say that all without exception are also "justified by his grace as a gift"?

 

[Clare73]

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." -Romans 3:23-25
Most Calvinist seem to claim that the "all" in Romans 3:23 means "all without exception" as it is a major proof text for total depravity. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," -Romans 3:23.
But if applied to the second half of the sentence continued in verses 24 and 25 than doesn't it say that all without exception are also "justified by his grace as a gift"?

Not if
1) "There is no difference + v.23" is parenthetical, and
2) Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8 are true.

 

[J&BC]

Not if "There is no difference + v.23" is parenthetical.

Why would this be parenthetical and if so why would this allow for the "all" in Romans 3:23 to not also apply to that which follows the "and" starting verse 24?

 

[Clare73]

Why would this be parenthetical and if so why would this allow for the "all" in Romans 3:23 to not also apply to that which follows the "and" starting verse 24?

1) Because v. 24 is a continuation of v. 22, and
2) parenthetical (v. 23) is a diversion from the assertion being made in vv. 22, 24, and would set it against the rest of the NT in Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8.

Correct interpretation harmonizes Scripture, it does not set it against itself.
For God does not contradict himself in his word.

 

[J&BC]

1) Because v. 24 is a continuation of v. 22, and
2) parenthetical (v. 23) is a diversion from the assertion being made in vv. 22, 24, and would set it against the rest of the NT in Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8.

Correct interpretation harmonizes Scripture, it does not set it against itself.
For God does not contradict himself in his word.

I have seen non-Calvinists harmonize Romans 3:22-25 with all the verses you have mentioned, without affirming limited atonement. Is there anything within the grammar of this text, the Greek, or the context of the passage that makes you think this is parenthetical?

 

[Clare73]

I have seen non-Calvinists harmonize Romans 3:22-25 with all the verses you have mentioned, without affirming limited atonement.
Is there anything within the grammar of this text, the Greek, or the context of the passage that makes you think this is parenthetical?

The meaning of the grammar must be understood in the light of all Scripture.
The NT context of the passage (doctrine of justification) would be Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8, which it contradicts.

Correct interpretation harmonizes Scripture, it does not set it against itself.
One's interpretation is incorrect if it is not in agreement with all the NT.
For God does not contradict himself in his word.

 

[J&BC]

The NT context of the passage would be Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8, which is contradicts.

Correct interpretation harmonizes Scripture, it does not set it against itself.
One's interpretation is incorrect if it is not in agreement with all the NT.
For God does not contradict himself in his word.

The way non-Calvinists harmonize these passages is this:
The "justification by grace as a gift" (v. 24) is given to the "all" (without exception) in v. 23. But it is only received by those who have faith (v. 25). This is not a contradiction of any of those passages you provided.

Since the Calvinist view is not the only way to harmonize these passages, is there another reason within the text for you to think this phrase is parenthetical?

 

[Clare73]

The way non-Calvinists harmonize these passages is this:
The "justification by grace as a gift" (v. 24) is given to the "all" (without exception) in v. 23. But it is only received by those who have faith (v. 25). This is not a contradiction of any of those passages you provided.

My understanding of election and predestination from Scripture does not see God "giving" such gifts to those who are not born again by the sovereign choice and will of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

The fallen nature of man does not desire complete submission to God (1 Co 2:14) and will not choose such apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit within the person.
And where the Holy Spirit savingly operates, there is no refusal, for the Holy Spirit gives one to be willing and desiring.

 

[J&BC]

My understanding of election and predestination from Scripture does not see God "giving" such gifts to those who are not born again by the sovereign choice and will of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

The fallen nature of man does not desire complete submission to God (1 Co 2:14) and will not choose such apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit within the person.
And where the Holy Spirit savingly operates, there is no refusal, for the Holy Spirit gives one to be willing and desiring.

I don't see how it is grammatically possible for the phrase you mentioned, "For there is no distinction: followed by v. 23" to be parenthetical. A parenthetical phrase by definition can be removed from the sentence without changing sentence structure. If you remove that phrase you are left with v. 24-25 with a sentence that starts with "and" and a verb "are justified" that is lacking a subject.

Is there another explanation?

 

[Clare73]

I don't see how it is grammatically possible for the phrase you mentioned, "For there is no distinction: followed by v. 23" to be parenthetical. A parenthetical phrase by definition can be removed from the sentence without changing sentence structure. If you remove that phrase you are left with v. 24-25 with a sentence that starts with "and" and a verb "are justified" that is lacking a subject.

Is there another explanation?

There is no other explanation in harmony with the rest of the NT in Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8.
All explanations must harmonize Scripture, for God does not contradict himself.
By the very nature of God, all his word is in agreement with itself in the light of all Scripture.

You must harmonize Ro 3:23-25 with the rest of Scripture to have a correct understanding of Ro 3:23-25.
If you set God against himself, you misunderstand him.

 

[J&BC]

There is no other explanation in harmony with the rest of the NT in Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8.
All explanations must harmonize Scripture, for God does not contradict himself.
By the very nature of God, all his word is in agreement with itself in the light of all Scripture.

You must harmonize Ro 3:23-25 with the rest of Scripture to have a correct understanding of Ro 3:23-25.
If you set God against himself, you misunderstand him.

Thank you Clare73 for your responses. I haven't been able to find a good answer either online or asking Clavinists on staff at my church so I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.

I'm just unwilling to break basic grammar rules to make my theology fit. I understand you think those other verses you mentioned can only be harmonized one way but I've seen other ways to harmonize each of them that keep the grammar of the sentences intact that aren't Calvinistic.

If you think of anything else you want to add or if there are any other Calvinists on this thread who have found other ways to harmonize this passage with Calvinist theology that don't break grammar rules, I would still be interested in hearing them. I want to see answers that deal with the text itself, not just telling me how it can't contradict Calvinism because Calvinism is true type of answers.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you Clare73 for your responses. I haven't been able to find a good answer either online or asking Clavinists on staff at my church so I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.

I'm just unwilling to break basic grammar rules to make my theology fit. I understand you think those other verses you mentioned can only be harmonized one way but I've seen other ways to harmonize each of them that keep the grammar of the sentences intact that aren't Calvinistic.

If you think of anything else you want to add or if there are any other Calvinists on this thread who have found other ways to harmonize this passage with Calvinist theology that don't break grammar rules, I would still be interested in hearing them. I want to see answers that deal with the text itself, not just telling me how it can't contradict Calvinism because Calvinism is true type of answers.

How do you harmonize Ro 3:23-25 with, keeping the grammar of Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11, Eph 2:8 intact?

V. 24 is a continuation of v. 22, while
(v. 23) is a parenthetical diversion from the assertion being made in vv. 22, 24.