How do you define the word "all" in these verses?

[Gelb1472]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"

Compare this verse with Paul's writing in Romans, where he states, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18) and "…For God has committed them all to disobedience), that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.

I look forward to hearing your various well thought interpretations of these verses.

 

[motherprayer]

It means that Christ died so that all men/women may have the opportunity to be saved.

 

[Clare73]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"

All those born of (in) Adam die.
All those born (of) in Christ live.

Compare this verse with Paul's writing in Romans, where he states, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18)

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for all mankind.
Christ's sacrifice makes salvation available to all mankind.

and "…For God has committed them all to disobedience), that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

Jews and Gentiles alike have been bound over to disobedience.
So that God may have mercy on Gentiles and Jews alike.

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.

I look forward to hearing your various well thought interpretations of these verses.

No, they do not have to be used the same way in each part of the sentence.
Sometimes they are contrasts.

"All" has more than one meaning, many times in the same sentence:
All mankind without exception
All Jews only
All Gentiles only
Jews as well as Gentiles
Gentiles as well as Jews
All unbelievers only
All believers only

Their meaning is determined by context and the whole counsel of God.

 

[gasman64]

All those born of (in) Adam die.
All those born (of) in Christ live.


Adam's trespass brought condemnation for all mankind.
Christ's sacrifice makes salvation available to all mankind.



Jews and Gentiles alike have been bound over to disobedience.
So that God may have mercy on Gentiles and Jews alike.


No, they do not have to be used the same way in each part of the sentence.
Sometimes they are contrasts.

"All" has more than one meaning, many times in the same sentence:
All mankind without exception
All Jews only
All Gentiles only
Jews as well as Gentiles
Gentiles as well as Jews
All unbelievers only
All believers only

Their meaning is determined by context and the whole counsel of God.

Good answer...

 

[MoreCoffee]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"

Compare this verse with Paul's writing in Romans, where he states, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18) and "…For God has committed them all to disobedience), that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.

I look forward to hearing your various well thought interpretations of these verses.

Context and the general teaching of the rest of scripture points to the way 'all' ought to be understood in each passage.

In the first 'all' has two significances the first use signifies those who are natural descendants of Adam and the second use signifies those who are in union with Christ Jesus through baptism and faith.

In the second 'all' has two significances the first use signifies those who are natural descendants of Adam and the second use signifies those who are in union with Christ Jesus through baptism and faith.

In the third 'all' also has two significances the first use signifies both Jews and Gentiles and the second signifies Jews and Gentiles who are united to Christ Jesus in baptism and faith.

Your statement:

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.​

Is not supported by saint Paul's argument nor by the teaching of Christ in the gospels.

 

[Clare73]

Context and the general teaching of the rest of scripture points to the way 'all' ought to be understood in each passage.

In the first 'all' has two significances the first use signifies those who are natural descendants of Adam and the second use signifies those who are in union with Christ Jesus through baptism and faith.

In the second 'all' has two significances the first use signifies those who are natural descendants of Adam and the second use signifies those who are in union with Christ Jesus through baptism and faith.

In the third 'all' also has two significances the first use signifies both Jews and Gentiles and the second signifies Jews and Gentiles who are united to Christ Jesus in baptism and faith.

Your statement:

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.
​

Is not supported by saint Paul's argument nor by the teaching of Christ in the gospels.

 

[Habakk]

It’s to do with union of nature. Because all natural men are born with a sinful nature, death can be traced back to one man, Adam.

Christ died for our sins that we may live so all those who are united with Christ have eternal life.

Adam was natural. Christ is the spiritual second Adam for all those who are spiritual. By the act or means of Adam all die. By the act or means of Christ all live. There are now some who die, the natural man and those who live, the spiritual man.

 

[Gelb1472]

What I have noticed in each person's response is that we want to add words to what Scripture says. An example of such is:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for all mankind. Christ's sacrifice makes salvation available to all mankind.

.

Along with this, I assume this is a forum of lay persons, but those that understand the various tenses in the Greek language that Paul used to write Corinthians and Romans, understand the difference between the descriptive and prescriptive tense in Scripture.

My point in all of this is that I believe in a God that does not fail. God wills that all shall be saved and I believe his will is perfectly accomplished. I do not believe that any human's will is greater than God's will. I do not believe that God endlessly tortures his creation on account of their inability to choose Him, when what we ALL in fact need to be saved from is our inability to choose him. Please do not respond with distinctions between God's perfect or soveriegn will and God's "allowed" will. I believe these are inventions that are not specifically laid out in Scripture....inventions so that we can continue to explain the literal text of the Scripture in our own defined terms.

Do I believe that God is just....ABSOLUTELY And by that justice not one of us can be saved. Can we save ourselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Therefore, we are at the mercy and grace of God's will to save us. I believe that God is one in purpose. If Scripture states that God wills that all should be saved, then how shall I (in my human theology) state that God wills some to endless torment. Maybe God really is better than we at first thought.

I end with a quote from the great Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard:

“The matter is quite simple. The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

 

[Clare73]

What I have noticed in each person's response is that we want to add words to what Scripture says. An example of such is:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for all mankind. Christ's sacrifice makes salvation available to all mankind.

A better explanation would be:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for Jews and Gentiles alike.
Christ's sacrifice brings salvation for Gentiles and Jews alike.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Gelb1472; My point in all of this is that I believe in a God that does not fail. God wills that all shall be saved and I believe his will is perfectly accomplished. I do not believe that any human's will is greater than God's will. I do not believe that God endlessly tortures his creation on account of their inability to choose Him, when what we ALL in fact need to be saved from is our inability to choose him. Please do not respond with distinctions between God's perfect or soveriegn will and God's "allowed" will. I believe these are inventions that are not specifically laid out in Scripture....inventions so that we can continue to explain the literal text of the Scripture in our own defined terms.

I have problems with the eternal torture doctrine too.

Do I believe that God is just....ABSOLUTELY And by that justice not one of us can be saved. Can we save ourselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Therefore, we are at the mercy and grace of God's will to save us. I believe that God is one in purpose. If Scripture states that God wills that all should be saved, then how shall I (in my human theology) state that God wills some to endless torment. Maybe God really is better than we at first thought.

His justice remains a fact expressed somehow (I'm thinking "wrath").

I end with a quote from the great Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard:

wow. Soren had a strong opinion about this.

 

[Rick Otto]

A better explanation would be:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for Jews and Gentiles alike.
Christ's sacrifice brings salvation for Gentiles and Jews alike.

That's what I'm thinkin'.

 

[Hentenza]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"

Compare this verse with Paul's writing in Romans, where he states, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18) and "…For God has committed them all to disobedience), that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.

I look forward to hearing your various well thought interpretations of these verses.

For as in Adam ALL die- all humankind.
so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive- all IN Christ.

The first ALL includes all humankind while the second ALL includes all IN Christ. Its pretty simple.

 

[Gelb1472]

A better explanation would be:

Adam's trespass brought condemnation for Jews and Gentiles alike.
Christ's sacrifice brings salvation for Gentiles and Jews alike.

If Paul (or God) had not meant ALL (everyone), could he not have said, Jews and Gentiles? I seem to recall other places where Paul (or God) has used a specific reference to Jews and Gentiles.

It seems to me that we read it this way because we have been taught to read it this way. We would rather not explore the ideas that maybe God just meant ALL (everyone). Surely there are verses that refer to various concepts of what English writers have termed Hell, but is there any way that we can take both literally and understand Scripture to be cohesive and non-contradictory.

Perhaps Hell is temporal and God is eternal. Well it certainly does say in the revelation that Death and Hades (both translated Hell in our bibles) will be thrown into the lake of fire. So does this mean that Hell will be thrown into hell, that doesnt seem to make much sense. But it says elsewhere that God is an eternal fire and in fact brimstone is used to signify divinity. So maybe death and Hades (Hell) is actually consumed by God at the end of time. And maybe, just maybe, that means that ALL (everyone) can be saved in the end. And who is the end? Well Jesus said he was the end. So maybe everyone can be saved in Jesus.

 

[Gelb1472]

For as in Adam ALL die- all humankind.
so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive- all IN Christ.

The first ALL includes all humankind while the second ALL includes all IN Christ. Its pretty simple.

The verse does not say ....all in christ, shall be made alive. The verse does say, in christ, ALL shall be made alive. This is an important distiction because the grammar used can in fact change the meaning.

If you are a student of the original languages, look up the part of speech and tense that the word All plays in this verse. Also look up the part of speech and tense that the subordinate clause, in Christ plays. You will see the distinction.

 

[sculleywr]

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Scripture states, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"

Compare this verse with Paul's writing in Romans, where he states, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of
righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18) and "…For God has committed them all to disobedience), that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

In each case the sentence structure is written in parallel structure, therefore how we define "all" in the first half of the sentence must be the same way that we define all in the second half of the sentence.

I look forward to hearing your various well thought interpretations of these verses.

I understand it in terms of the fact that it makes arbitrary regeneration a falsehood, and limited atonement unscriptural

 

[Hentenza]

The verse does not say ....all in christ, shall be made alive. The verse does say, in christ, ALL shall be made alive. This is an important distiction because the grammar used can in fact change the meaning.

You are isolating the verse and applying a meaning that is not intended by its author. Paul explains that: 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."

No where is Paul including all mankind but only those who have faith in Christ in this life (v. 17) and those who died IN Christ (v. 17).

If you are a student of the original languages, look up the part of speech and tense that the word All plays in this verse. Also look up the part of speech and tense that the subordinate clause, in Christ plays. You will see the distinction.

There is no issue with ἐν as prepositions joining subordinate clauses. The problem is that you are misinterpreting ἐν to mean that all people will be made alive in Christ when the writer is expressively telling you that all IN Christ will be made alive. There are MANY other verses in scripture that teach this fact. The wicked (unbelievers) will not be made alive in Christ simply because they deny the resurrection and remain in their sins which is what this chapter is teaching.

 

[Reformationist]

It means that Christ died so that all men/women may have the opportunity to be saved.

So Christ died to create nothing more than the opportunity for salvation?

Do you recognize that means that, theorhetically, none would have availed themselves of the "opportunity" and Christ's death would have saved no one?

Also, what isit that makes that opportunity an actuality for anyone?

 

[Reformationist]

I understand it in terms of the fact that it makes arbitrary regeneration a falsehood, and limited atonement unscriptural

Why do you insist on creating strawman arguments? Who espouses regeneration of an arbitrary nature?

Also, for those that might be misled by scully's comment, it is the intent that is limited, not the value. Had God intended, Christ's death could have efficaciously atoned for the sins of all without exception.

God bless

 

[sculleywr]

Why do you insist on creating strawman arguments? Who espouses regeneration of an arbitrary nature?

Also, for those that might be misled by scully's comment, it is the intent that is limited, not the value. Had God intended, Christ's death could have efficaciously atoned for the sins of all without exception.

God bless

If all were not intended to be made alive in Christ, then all were not made dead in Adam. If God did not atone for all mankind in the death of Christ, then His decision is arbitrary. If His atonement is offered to all and we simply reject it, then God is not impugned with the sin of partiality.

 

[Reformationist]

If all were not intended to be made alive in Christ, then all were not made dead in Adam.

Were all made alive in Christ?

If God did not atone for all mankind in the death of Christ, then His decision is arbitrary.

Please define "arbitrary" as you are using it.

If His atonement is offered to all and we simply reject it, then God is not impugned with the sin of partiality.

So God would be sinful if He treated some different than others?