The Bible is renowned for its intricate and nuanced nature in terms of interpretation. Your argument emphasizes the belief that the idea of all men can be understood as encompassing all of humanity, with faith being a crucial factor in this interpretation. You suggest that universal atonement is achievable, but individuals must actively demonstrate their faith to access it. When analyzing a text, we must not only consider the immediate context but also take into account the broader context in which it is situated. Various passages indicate that faith is described as a gift, prompting the question of how it can be considered a gift if it requires our own efforts to obtain it. The resolution lies in the understanding that faith is bestowed upon us as a gift from God, solely through His divine will.

You are contending that SBG's perspective differs from your own. He argues that faith is not necessary for achieving reconciliation, a view that aligns with your belief that those without faith already have the potential for reconciliation. What does SBG's position ultimately suggest? It implies that religious individuals possess only partial righteousness. If individuals are reconciled prior to having genuine faith, those within the religious community may mistakenly think they are in good standing with the covenant. This approach also prioritizes rules and regulations over grace. In reality, you are more inclined to agree with SBG than I am in the belief that faith is not solely a result of grace.

Through my analysis, I have shown that a strict interpretation of the term "men" as encompassing all individuals can result in inconsistencies within the text. The doctrine does not explicitly assert that all individuals for whom Christ died have the opportunity for salvation, but rather emphasizes that only those who actively demonstrate faith will attain salvation. By imposing this interpretation, one introduces concepts that are not explicitly articulated in the text.