And what does this 'Pas' mean in Rom.3:23?
Is it 'all sorts' in that case also?
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam.
Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
And, to argue that mere man could resist God's will is a straw man argument.
Not if it is God who allows it.
Oh, God will let you sin, but even that is within His Plan, and will result in no good to you.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that.
This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Since Adam fell, man has had the exact opposite problem: He cannot DO what God commands!
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall?
Was that not God's will for him?
What is that command? Repent, and believe the Gospel, and you shall be saved.
True.
As for God's Will, nothing happens that God has not already known about, and incorporated into His Plan.
True.
He isn't waiting to see IF you will do any certain thing, He already knows with absolute certainty that you will do everything that you have done, are doing, and will do, clear to the end of time and beyond.
True.
And He knows that with a certainty that you can't even begin to fathom.
True.
That is not the issue, the issue or question is why are things happening that God clearly states He does not want, but nevertheless are still happening.
Wesley believed God controled history as did Arminius.
Some Arminians have gone off track with the view of 'open theology' in an attempt to defend free will.
However, one can understand God's understanding of free will as being factored in, God knowing all the possiblities and what decisions would be made for or against him, and still be in complete control of human history with man having real choices to make.
For a discussion on the different views you might want to get a book on the Divine Foreknowledge, four views, edit. James K.Beilby and Paul Eddy .
You want man's will, his so-called ability to choose (from a morally neutral position, which is patently false), to be the one thing that God must yield to, the one thing that He cannot override without being "unfair". You don't understand God's Soveriegnty, His Omnipotence, or His Omniscience. If you did, you wouldn't argue for such a stupid thing!
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
No because in this case Paul is obviously talking about "all" in an individual sense, and the context bears this out. In 2Peter3, Peter is talking about "all" in a collective sense, which carries the meaning of "all sorts". The King James translators got it wrong, because they inserted their own theology into the translation. Words mean things, and context helps to establish precise meaning. Unfortunately, English doesn't always have the precise word to translate the idea without resorting to a phrase, which the translators sometimes don't (or won't) do.
In Romans 5:18 you have that same 'pas' in both statements, which equally refers to those who born under the 1st Adam and then fall under the grace of the Second Adam. Moreover, the Calvinist Spurgeon admitted that 1Tim.2:4 did refer to God's will that all (every) man be saved.
In1 Timothy 2:4, the sense is obviously collective, therefore the "all sorts" sense is correct. In Romans 5:18, The same word is used in both parts of the verse, that is true. But, in a situation like this, you must also compare scripture with scripture to see whether "all" in both halves of the verse are in the same sense, or are to be understood in the same way. When that is done, it can be seen that the preponderance of scripture indicates that only "some" will actually be saved. The free gift is sufficient for all, but only efficacious for those whom God has chosen, which is part and parcel of the doctrine of salvation and election. That is why it is dangerous to build a doctrinal position from one, two, or three verses, and ignoring the whole of scripture regarding said doctrine. Even Spurgeon and Calvin could be wrong, sometimes.
Well, 'let' implies a permissive will, which means you doing something against the desire of God, but God is allowing it despite that. This is not the position of Calvinism, which states that everything is happening because of God's directive will, to bring about God's glory.
Let's define Will, shall we? Because I think you're using some terms interchangeably with Will as it refers to God, trying to find leverage for your unscriptural view. Let's start by asking some questions. Does God command people to sin? No! That would be a Directive, wouldn't it? Now, Does God permit sin to exist? Obviously yes, so we have a situation where God permits something to exist, while not commanding anyone to actually do it. You want to call that God's Permissive Will. Sin is not something God created, it is something that his creation brought about by disobedience to the Directive Will of God. It is an aberration in the creation that He allows to exist. Therefore, God is not the creator (author) of sin, but He can use it as a tool to direct the affairs of men and angels, simply by the fact that He, being God, knows what choices his creatures will make, and directing events in such a way that His purpose is accomplished while at the same time not actively causing or directing the individual decisions that lead to those events. It's simple cause and effect. He knows what action will trigger what reaction, and can bring people and events together in such a way that everyne freely chooses what they will do, and God's purpose is fulfilled. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
And according to Calvin, why did Adam fall? Was that not God's will for him?
It happened within the framework of God's Will. Did God CAUSE Adam to fall? NO! Adam fell, and paid the price for his disobedience. Nothing happens that is outside of the Will of God, but that does not mean that God actively caused it to happen.
And you do not understand God's Holiness and Love, or you would not argue that God is really the one who wants sin and death in the world (for His glory!)
I do not say that. You mischaracterize what I have said. God uses those things (sin and death) FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. In that way, He brings Glory to Himself out of that which He hates. You argue for an ideal that is obviously not possible here and now. There will be a day when those things will not exist. They will cease to exist when they have served their usefulness in God's Plan. Do you not believe this? I think that's the thing you have a problem with. You can't see how God can use sin and death to bring Glory to Himself, so you try to explain it away by other means.
God brings about His glory despite the wicked actions of men, not because of them.
Not entirely true. God said that Joseph's brothers meant their actions for evil against Joseph, but God meant their actions for good to Joseph. So which is it? Man may mean evil, but God may use man's evil deeds to bring about good.