ALL the world.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Jarthur001, Feb 26, 2009.

  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has been said that some non-Calvinist often use the argument "All does not always mean all of mankind" in order to support the non-Calvinist very.

    In fact I can show you a old thread that claims this, and also I have a few other sources that claim it.

    Now this is what I would like addressed by non-Calvinist. How does this argument (all does not always mean all of mankind) work in favor of the free-will/ non-Calvinist view.

    I'm not saying mind you that non_Calvinist cannot hold this view, for it is clear some do.
    :godisgood:
     
  2. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,145
    Likes Received:
    365
    Where is "all" in John 3:16?
     
  4. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    :)

    I have been told they do. I want to see how.
     
  8. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes....

    But will a non-Calvinist use it? I was told so by two non-calvinist, and I asked how...and they never told me. I was wondering of others would know how a non-Calvinist would use "All does not always mean all of mankind", in order to support their non-calvinist doctrine.

    Hang in there, maybe we all will see.
     
  9. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think I know where you're going with this. Should be interesting.
     
  10. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #10 Allan, Feb 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2009
  11. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thus my point.
     
  12. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe your point, but how does this help support the non-Calvinist view??? That is my point and always has been.
     
  13. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has never been anything otherwise and to assume it has been shows you haven't been listening. :)
     
  14. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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.
     
  15. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allan,

    You said....
    Which in fact is not true. If you read the OP it states what I believe so there is no need to say false statements about me assuming anything.

    Please read the last line in the OP
    OP says....
    I can show you in old thread where I said the same thing.

    I do not deny you believe it. You have said you do believe it....so I'm sure you do believe it.

    I asked now as I always have asked......

    HOW DOES THIS HELP THE NON-CALVINIST VIEW????
     
    #15 Jarthur001, Feb 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2009
  16. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes...and has nothing to do with what I asked.

    Please address the OP
     
  17. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm holding on to this......

    I may address it later. :godisgood:
     
  18. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    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). :)
     
    #18 Allan, Feb 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2009
  19. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I already did, in that very post. :confused:
     
  20. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    You may, and do so whenever you wish.
     

Share This Page

Loading...