Quote
Isha said:
I just can not seem to align this with all the Whosoevers and alls.
I can understand the problem you are having here, but I can confidently say that it is generally easily resolved. The problem is a hermeneutical one... i.e. a matter of interpretation. I'll let the following quotes serve for my explanation (saves me from typing, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />)

Quote
One more word that should at least be briefly consider is the word ALL. A word that is so often stubbornly used by some without consideration only to accommodate their own means. We will not go into a lengthy discussion but leave it to the reader's honesty to take God's Word and see for himself how limited that little word ALL can be or how inclusive, depending on that which God has under consideration.

Webster says, the word ALL means:

"The whole; the total; the actual aggregate of particulars of persons or those involved in any PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION," etc. Thus we must be careful that we do not take the attitude of some which say without consideration "All means all and that is the end of the matter.
And,

Quote
Taken from here: <a href="" target="_blank">Exegetial Study of 1Timothy 2:4</a>
3. Biblical: The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted" (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles).
In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]