all about 'ALL'

All means all, Ed. You know it. I know it. The Calvinists can't afford to admit it.

 

Does 'all' means limited to you?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I think I'll pas on this thread

 

So all means "some"

...and some can mean all

 

Come on, Helen. You know this isn't true. Calvinists do believe that all means all. Your use of this tactic is wrong. The discussion is about what comes after "all" ... "all of what." You should know that, particularly as much as you claim to have studied.

What do you think "all" mean in Mark 1:5: And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Even John 3:16 requires some manipulation on your part. You don't beleive "all" will be saved. You qualify "all" with "who believe." That is exactly the point of Calvinists.

So feel free to disagree, but don't be disingenuous about the argument, please.

 

==All must be qualified by how it is being used by the author. Does it refer to everyone in general, every person specifically, or as hyperbole. There is no such thing as a blanket definition here since the context must determine how "all" is to be defined.

 

OK, Larry, please squeeze your way around the following:

"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone -- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:1-4

"All" is used several times there.
Does "all those in authority" mean only some of them?
Does "all godliness" mean "mostly godly"?
Does "wants all men to be saved" mean some men?

If 'all' has any correspondence with 'everyone' (and they are synonyms, are they not?), then please note the following:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering."
Hebrews 2:9-10

Clearly, Jesus tasted death for EVERYONE, but only MANY were brought to glory. There is a distinction made here which Calvinists ignore. Atonement was for everyone, for all. All have the option, the true option of being saved through faith in Christ Jesus. But it is equally clear that only MANY are saved, not ALL.

And this confirms the common sense, straightforward reading of 2 Peter 3:9:

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Your efforts to get out of the clear meaning of 'all' by resorting to the use of idiomatic phrases doesn't fly with anyone who understands the use of language. "All Judea" means from all parts of Judea. The translators used it the way we use it and the way the Hebrews used it. All Jerusalem may mean just that, by the way -- that there was no one in Jerusalem who did not, at one time or another, go out to see this John the Baptist person and what he was doing.

John 3:16 requires no manipulation at all, and that, sir, is disingenuous of you. Bible explains Bible and that verse is quite well explained by the two following verses.

 

I don't "squeeze" my way around anything. I will be glad to address these though.

Sometimes, "all" means "all kinds of" (all without distinction). I am sure you are familiar with that since you have studied this so much. I disagree with that position. I think "all" in this passage is all without exception rather than all without distinction. Good men disagree and with good reasons.

BTW, this is another passage that shows a qualification to "all." Paul's instructions are not about "everyone who ever lived." But about all "in authority." He is not addressing those not in authority with that statement. He limits the all. (I think that is self-evident, which makes your assertions all the more confusing.)

Again, exegetically, there are some issues that you are ignoring. But having said that, I don't really disagree. Calvinists understand this passage in different ways. I commented on it recently here on the BB. I won't rehash that here.

I agree. I think this passage, along with 1 Tim 2:4 talks about God's desirative will. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is different, however, than his decreed will.

For the most part, you and I agree on these passages. Having said all that, there are good exegetical reasons to disagree with you and me on this. The fact that you think these are determinative passages speaks volumes. Calvinists disagree on them yet still agree on Calvinism. That shows that these passages are not determinative.

I don't know what you mean by this. I guarantee that people who know language far better than you and I put together disagree with you. I simply pointed out a place where "all" does not mean all men without exception, and you agree, so I don't know why you said what you did on the previous page, nor why you said it here.

So you are agreeing that "all" does not always mean "all." Which is strange, given your previous arguments.

And how do you know that? (Not that it's relevant, but I have never heard this assertion.)

I agree.

What is disingenuous? that I poitn out what we all know? That "all" has a qualification that shows it does not mean "all men who ever lived"? Typically, honesty is not called disingenuous.

You don't need the next two verses. V. 16 is enough to show that "all" means "all who believe." It is what the verse says.

BTW, you don't have to call me sir. Larry will be fine.

 

Don't you just lov these little jabs of attacking without a direct attack. Helen never used to be like this when I first got to this board, what 6 or 7 years ago.
As has been shown from scripture in several veres, all does not always mean all, as in every single one, it depends on the verse, and what is being said. But then you'd have to take it context wouldn't you.

 

Or the implied set. Exactly. Whenever you see the word "all" you should ask youself, "all of whom?" or "all of what?" Answer it in a way that doesn't contradict other scripture and you have a CHANCE of being right.

Even Bible translators are aware of this issue. That's why one translation has Jesus saying "I will draw all men" and another says "I will draw all peoples". The latter recognizes that "all men", while correct, has implications that contradict other scripture. The translators chose "all peoples" to resolve the conflict.

See? It's not just Calvinists who know the issue is "all of whom?"

 

Actually I don't think it is so much about the 'all'.

Most agree that all can have differing aspects of the same meaning which is defined by the 'qualifier'. Since "all" can be an Adjective, noun, pronoun, adverb and idiom, we find it has more than one aspect of its inherent meaning.

I think Pastor Larry is correct about "all" being either without exception (all of the whole) or "all" of having distinction (all [of a group] distinct from the whole).

You can have "all of a thing", or all of a certain group out of the whole of that thing.
i.e. All dogs are Labs (every single dog- all of the whole species), or ,
i.e. All Labs are dogs (all of a type fron the whole they are apart of).

The "all" still concerns "all of" but the qualifiers denotes two basic aspects of it inherant meaning [without execption and without distinction].

So, yes - "all" does mean "all" but as it has been stated "all of what?" (the whole or a group within the whole).



The real problem as I see it isn't so much with the word "all" but the word "world" (IMO). There is just a problem with interpreting what the "all" is in some cases.

But as I see it, it is really a problem maintianing the biblical defintion of the word "World". The word "world" has its meaning established in the OT and it is consistant through out it in EVERY instance. It holds two basic meanings with variations of each meaning while still maintaining unalteringly their original intent. (World in the geographical sense, and World meaning "all" sinful and wicked men - NOT all mankind). The NT doesn't change the established meaning which God set forth and maintained in the OT.

As believers we are not OF THE WORLD but in it, we are taken OUT OF THE WORLD. Believers are never described in the OT (in any sense) as being "the world or a world" refering to people of God as a distinct group from The "World". SO to try to give us as believers the Title in any form or fashion in the NT is completely against it's scirptural intent and meaning. God does not give specific definition to a word in one major or larger portion of the two Covenants and then decide to modify it's usage in the later. God word does not change. What established in the Old is expouned upon in the New, but the meaning does not change but rather it is revealed in greater detail it orginal intent. But that is a different thread

But that is my nickle tossed in.
*clink*

 

Oh , so you think your thoughjts are worth more than the standard 2 pennies Allan ? Two senses ( pun intended ) Allan ? Try 7 or 8 senses of the English word "world" in the Bible .

 

This will get a person into alot of trouble.
IF your theology doesn't fit with what it states, then what? You either change the meaning or you accept what scripture says regardless of if it contradicts YOUR UNDERSTANDING of other scripture. It may just be that your understanding of other scripture is in fact wrong. We do not bring the bible in line with our theologies but we are to bring our theologies in line (for line) with the Word of God.

When we find things that contradict our understanding of what the Bible is supposed to be saying, then we had better go back and take a long second look at our presupposition.

And No, that is not only for "all" Cal's, but for "all" believers. :laugh:

 

I put my pennies where my mouth is Rippon, how about you?