I am not abandoning the moral accountability thread and will respond after dinner (as I type this it is about 5:30 here on the West Coast-- edit: well, it started out that way!), but something has been rolling around in my mind that was said on that thread and I want to ask about it here, because I think it deserves attention of its own. Pastor Larry wrote (near the bottom of the second page of that thread) "As for Helen's question, as a general rule, yes Calvinists tend to believe that. We base it on, among other things, the truth of Eph 1:11 that God is working (action verb, not a reaction verb) all thing (how much can you leave out and still have all things) after the counsel of his own will (not someone else's)." He had other words bolded, but the ones I have bolded here are the ones I want to concentrate on. He made a particular point of emphasizing that 'all' meanst 'all'. Here are some other places where 'all' is used. Does it still mean 'all'? Matt. 11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. Hebrews 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. Hebrews 7:27 Unlike other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 1 Timothy 2:3-6 This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to all knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men -- the testimony given in its proper time. Does 'all' still mean 'all'?