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.

 

[Brightfame52]

"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"?

No. the all in Rom 3:23 is limited to the elect, and its them, the all of the elect, which have been Justified by grace through the redemption[by blood] in Christ Jesus their Surety, this surety blood was set forth in types and shadows unto the elect in the OT which they were given Faith in His Blood which is their redemption also.

 

[Don Maurer]

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at ALL; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin; as it is written “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that EVERY mouth may be closed and ALL the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no (there is a use of "all" --pasa-- here also) flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for ALL those who believe; for there is no distinction; for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

If one does not limit the context of the word "ALL" to just the 3 verses mentioned in the first post, it can easily be seen that Paul is using the term "ALL" in a variety of ways. In fact the very first use of the term "all" in verse 9 does not speak of each and every person who ever lived, but is merely an emphatic word "Not at all." There are times that the word "ALL" is used to speak of everyone person who ever lived, and other times the term all speaks of a group of people.
ILLUSTRATION--- If I promise a free nickle to all those who read this post, then the word "all" does not speak to the whole world, but only those who read this post.
The first use of the term "all" in this limited sense is in verse 22. Verse 22 speaks to a group. It speaks to "all" those who believe. Typically, when the term "ALL" is used of a group of people a participle will follow. In fact that is exactly what happens in verse 22. The participle τοὺς πιστεύοντας (The ones who believe) is used to modify the preceding use of term "ALL." Even an article is used in verse 22 directly preceding the participle for believing ones. Verse 23 the grammar is different. When verse 23 says "ALL HAVE SINNED" there is no participle, there is no group. The term "ALL" is simply followed by a 2nd aorist verb.

This use of the term "ALL" in verse 23 is very different than the use of the word "ALL" in verse 22. The grammar of verse 23 is similar (but not identical) to verse 9. In verse 9 the term "ALL" can be defined as "both Jews and Gentiles."

CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that person who started this thread is asking for a grammatical demonstration that the word all can be used in different ways in this context. Grammatical and contextual evidence has been presented. The grammar and context does indeed demonstrate that the word "ALL" should be understood to refer to two different groups (or even in 3 different ways). One group is the whole world who sinned in Adam (Explained in Romans 5) and the other group is "ALL those who believe." These verses definitely do not substantiate a salvific universalism of any variety as hinted at in the OP. There is no evidence within the context that there are any benefits of the atonement from which nonbelievers can benefit from. All benefits of the atonement in this context belong to believers only.

 

[Don Maurer]

If I can also mention, I do not come here much. While I think the arguments presented above a quite air tight, I may or may not respond to agreement or disagreement.

 

[Brightfame52]

@J&BC

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.

I believe all in Rom 3:23 means only the elect and it does speak of their total depravity see Rom 3:9-20

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"?

These verses apply only to the elect, only the elect are Justified Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Isa 45:25

25 In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

 

[Don Maurer]

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?

The universalist interpretation (in the OP by J&BC) applying justification to "all" is not even in the ball park of correct grammatical interpretation. The author of the OP is totally doing isogesis. Notice what he is doing when he says... "The "justification by grace as a gift" (v. 24) is given to the "all" (without exception) in v. 23." Really???? Are you serious???? You are saying that the word "ALL" in verse 23 speaks of the atonement? The word "ALL" in verse 23 modifies the phrase "have sinned and come short of the glory of God." J&BC then takes this word all from verse 23 and applies it to justification in verse 24. J&BC then adds the words "without exception" in the paranthesis. His interpretation is grammatically impossible.

Fortunately, when J&BC gets to verse 25, he applies verse 25 only to those who believe. However, the word justiciation in verse 25 is absent and the word "propitiation" is in its place. So then, J&BC seems to be saying that there is a universal justification for all without exception, but he is also saying that verse 25 makes justicication only for those who believe. I think he is still trying to stay in the camp of "justification by faith alone" (protestant), but he is doing it in an extremely clumsey way. J&BC is switching the term "ALL" to places where it is not found, and ignoring the word "ALL" where it actually is found. J&BC is creating an isogetical mess. In other posts J&BC complains that Calvinists are not following the grammar of the passage, when truth be told, it is him not following the grammar.

J&BC, if you want justification by faith, just go back to verse 22. The term "ALL" (pantas) is used in a phrase that is related to the atonement (the righteousness of God). In verse 22, the term "ALL" limits the benefits of the atonement (the righteousness of God) to "ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE." J&BC does not do this because he is trying to make some aspect of the atonement universal. Concerning verse 22, there is a linguistic connection to verse 24. In verse 22 the word "righteousness" (dikaiosunh). This is related to the word "justification" (dikaioumenoi) in verse 24. So then, the concepts of verse 24, "justified, gift, grace, redemption" are all a part of the righteousness of God that is received by faith. Why then does J&BC draw the word "ALL" from verse 23 instead of verse 22?
(((( I suspect this is what Clare73 was trying to say using the term "paranthesis" but I would not call this a paranthesis, but rather just note that the word "ALL" in verse 23 is not related to the atonement of the other verses.)))).

This passage definitely does not prove any aspect of a universal atonement and certainly not a universal justification. In fact J&BC limits the atonement himself when he says "But it is only received by those who have faith (v. 25)." I would certainly agree with the 2nd part of what J&BC says. However, I strongly suspect J&BC is saying that the benefits of the atonement are given universally by God, but received ony by those of faith. Because of this concept, J&BC applies the word "justified" in verse 24 to the universal benefits of the atonement given to all men. However, to be consistent, he would also need to say that the "gift...grace...redemption" are also universal benefits.

If anything, this passage demonstrates that the benefits of the atonement are limited only to those who believe. Also, the word "ALL" in Romans 3:23 is in a phrase that means all have sinned.

 

[Brightfame52]

The propitiation of Rom 3:24-25 is limited to them who have been Justified by grace through the redemptive work of Christ, they are given Faith in His Blood since thats the basis of their Justification and the basis why God towards them has been propitiated.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

[lesliedellow]

"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"?

For it to mean what you want it to mean, you would have to insert “all” between “and” and “are jusitied.” As it is, it is only the means of justification which is spoken of.

The way you are trying to read the passage, it would be universal salvation which was there be spoken of.

 

[Clare73]

For it to mean what you want it to mean, you would have to insert “all” between “and” and “are jusitied.” As it is, it is only the means of justification which is spoken of.

The way you are trying to read the passage, it would be universal salvation which was there be spoken of.

"All" is used in two ways in the NT:

1) all without distinction (Gentiles as well as Jews, not necessarily all of either),

2) all without exception (all of both Gentiles and Jews).

Which meaning applies is determined by its context in the light of the context of all Scripture, where the meaning of "all" above is the first one: all without distinction; i.e. Gentiles as well as Jews, not necessarily all of either.