1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ALL the world.

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

  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Ratings:
    +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 <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Ratings:
    +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 Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,480
    Ratings:
    +1,004
    Where is "all" in John 3:16?
     
  4. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Ratings:
    +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 <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Ratings:
    +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 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Ratings:
    +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 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Ratings:
    +0
    :)

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

    Jarthur001 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Ratings:
    +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. Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Ratings:
    +14
    I think I know where you're going with this. Should be interesting.
     
  10. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Ratings:
    +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 Active Member

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

    Jarthur001 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Ratings:
    +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 Active Member

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

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Ratings:
    +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 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Ratings:
    +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 New Member

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

    Please address the OP
     
  17. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 New Member

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

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

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Ratings:
    +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 Active Member

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

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Ratings:
    +0
    You may, and do so whenever you wish.
     
Loading...