ALL the world.

Why would non-cals use this argument? In my experience it is calvinists who like to say that "all does not mean all" with reference to John 3:16.

 

I haven't used it. But I guess there are times where all wouldn't mean everybody. For example in Acts where it says all were healed it does not mean everyone in the world, but those in the context of the statement. All the sick ones who were present.

 

Ann, the topic on this thread is "all the world". John 3:16 says 'God so loved the world". I have seen many arguments as to whether "the world" means all men, the elect, or something else. While the word "all" is not there, the same concept "all the world" is a subject of debate in relation to this verse.

 

I've heard arguments from calavist that the world is not all the world and that all doesn't mean everyone in 2Pet 3:9

I'm not sure where non-cals use it, but I am sure they probably do.

Man, Cal vs non cal threads are getting popular.

 

I think I know where you're going with this. Should be interesting.

 

Since James is addressing my statement, let me correct the above.

His title is misleading but what was actaully being discussed is that the term "all" does not always mean all of something but sometimes it means "all" of a portion of that whole.

James assumes that many if not most of the non-cals do not agree with this, which of course we in fact do. We just disagree with some of those places that our Reformed brethren assumes 'all' means only the portion and not the whole.

The determing factor is context and not theological preference.

 

Thus my point.

 

It has never been anything otherwise and to assume it has been shows you haven't been listening.

 

"All" means 'all of the whole' when context dictates.

"All" means 'all of a portion of the whole when context dictates'.

The key here is the context of the surrounding passages, not the context of ones theological view. :thumbs:

This has always been what the Non-Cals have espoused.

 

And what did I say that contradicts your last line?

I stated you presumedly think many if not most... you said "some do hold this view". Your usage of 'some' is a term that typically refers to a small number thus my implication that you think many if not most Non-Cals think "all" means all (as in the whole at all times).

No one said you didn't, but in the old thread (presumably the one you PM'ed me about) directly was addressing me - by name, as to never use this in a C vs A debate. I stated infatically I would use it because all does not always mean all of the whole. And that my friend makes my view (the some) a minority view.

Simple - I believe that context establishes our view thus it 'helps' our view. Therefore 'all' is either of the whole or it is 'all of a portion' of that whole.

If you are looking for something imparticular please address that issue. You have addressed in your OP 'how' it affects our view at all (on the whole).

 

I already did, in that very post.

 

You may, and do so whenever you wish.