All means all

[FutureAndAHope]

This post is a counter to the idea that God preselected a group of people for salvation before creation, and also at that time choose others for damnation, what is known as Calvinism. It is a fatalistic idea that man does not choose to follow God of free will, but rather God elects some to salvation, and elects others to damnation, and the people have no choice in the matter.

Country to this idea, the Bible is clear God gave Himself as a ransom for all men.

1Ti 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

The above verse shows us that a) God’s desire is to save as many as receive Him, note b) He gave himself as a ransom for all. This shows that the “all men” being talked about is a reference to their salvation. Not some general form of “other salvation”.

The following scriptures show us that “all men” includes both “saved” and unsaved, and for “us” and the “whole world”.

1Ti 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Not only this when Jesus speaks of His willingness to save, he states that it was “man not him”, that was unwilling.

Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

A Calvinist will say that God chooses some for damnation and others for salvation. Meaning God was unwilling to save the damned that He desired their destruction. That He only had a willingness to save the elect.

But Luke 12:38 above clearly shows that God “desired to save the children of Israel”, but they were in many cases “unwilling”. The following scripture also shows us that God has a willingness to save those who are straying, that contrary to Calvinism, God does not delight in the death of the wicked, that that is not his will.

Eze 33:11 Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'

In light of this, we need to be careful in interpreting scripture in a fatalistic way. For Jesus clearly said “I wanted to gather your children together”, that is God’s will. He wanted salvation for people. But the people “were not willing”.

The same applies today, God wants salvation for all. But often people are not willing to follow Him.

 

[fastfredy0]

All means all ... but what does "ALL" mean?​

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Every - used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception

Warning: The meaning of the words “all” and “every” and “everyone” has been distorted by many to make verses fit the doctrine they prescribe. As these words can refer to ambiguous groupings, it is best to ascertain the specific meaning from scripture that is explicit rather than implicit.
In Scripture the word “all” (as applied to humankind) is used in two senses—absolutely and relatively. In some passages it means all without exception; in others it signifies all without distinction. As to which of these meanings it bears in any particular passage must be determined by the context and decided by a comparison of parallel Scriptures. That the word “all” is used in a relative and restricted sense, and in such case means all without distinction and not all without exception, is clear from a number of Scriptures, from which two or three samples follow: “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). Does this mean that every man, woman and child from “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” were baptized of John in Jordan? Surely not. Again we read, “And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them” (John 8:2); are we to understand this expression absolutely or relatively? Does “all the people” mean all without exception or all without distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of people? Manifestly the latter; for the Temple was not able to accommodate everybody that was in Jerusalem at this time, namely, the Feast of Tabernacles. Author Unknown
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

Examples:

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?
• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?
• 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay [as though He were unable to act] and is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is [extraordinarily] patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. If God did not want anyone to be in hell, then just don’t create them in the first place.

 

[Josheb]

This post is a counter to the idea that God preselected a group of people for salvation before creation, and also at that time choose others for damnation, what is known as Calvinism. It is a fatalistic idea that man does not choose to follow God of free will, but rather God elects some to salvation, and elects others to damnation, and the people have no choice in the matter.

Have you ever read Calvin? Have you ever studied Calvinism as articulated by Calvinists? Or, are all your sources second- or third-party sources who are not Calvinists?

I ask because these two sentences are NOT an accurate representation of Calvinism and if those two sentences are what you are arguing against then this opening post is a straw man. I also ask because information correcting these mistakes is readily available and easily obtained (Calvin's commentaries and the WCF is available online for free). Introductions like this should never be penned given the availability and ease of access. I also ask because the Holy Spirit does not prompt indwelt people to argue straw men. Only the flesh argues fallacy. God's word commands that we bear true and accurate witness and the first two sentences of this op bear a false witness. I assume you do not want to be arguing a straw man. I assume you do want to have an accurate and correct understanding of anything you critique. I assume you want to be led by the written word and the Holy Spirit and not by prejudiced adversarial extra-biblical sources who may been arguing from their flesh.


So....

Let's start simple, and let's start with something very basic. What are your sources for Calvinism? What have you read or heard?

 

[Josheb]

1Ti 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,


The above verse shows us that a) God’s desire is to save as many as receive Him, note b) He gave himself as a ransom for all. This shows that the “all men” being talked about is a reference to their salvation. Not some general form of “other salvation”.

The following scriptures show us that “all men” includes both “saved” and unsaved, and for “us” and the “whole world”.

Calvin said the exact same thing. Does that surprise you? It took me 37 seconds to call up the text in question, click on Calvin's commentary, scroll down to the relevant verses and copy and paste Calvin's words into this post. There is no excuse for the openly sentences of this op. There's no excuse for not checking Calvin's commentary on the 1 Timothy 2 text before posting.

Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:3-6 reads, in part, as follows,

"The universal term all must always be referred to classes: of men, and not to persons; as if he had said, that not only Jews, but Gentiles also, not only persons of humble rank, but princes also, were redeemed by the death of Christ. Since, therefore, he wishes the benefit of his death to be common to all, an insult is offered to him by those who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation."


Calvin explicitly stated his opposition to those who argued the Timothy text excluded anyone. All classes of men are included. Calvin explicitly stated it was an "insult" to shut out anyone from the hope of salvation.


Therefore, this opening post is demonstrably incorrect. Either someone taught you wrongly, falsely about Calvinism, or you are the one solely responsible for the mistakes made in this op. Either way, correction is warranted. Calvinism does not teach God caused anyone to sin or chose them or destruction apart from their free will.

Will you now acknowledge what Calvin is shown to have written? Will you now do the factually correct thing and the morally right thing and acknowledge Calvin did, in fact and truth, teach 1 Timothy 2:3-6 teaches no one should be excluded from the hope of the gospel - "all" does mean all?

 

[ReverendRV]

This post is a counter to the idea that God preselected a group of people for salvation before creation, and also at that time choose others for damnation, what is known as Calvinism. It is a fatalistic idea that man does not choose to follow God of free will, but rather God elects some to salvation, and elects others to damnation, and the people have no choice in the matter.

Country to this idea, the Bible is clear God gave Himself as a ransom for all men.



The above verse shows us that a) God’s desire is to save as many as receive Him, note b) He gave himself as a ransom for all. This shows that the “all men” being talked about is a reference to their salvation. Not some general form of “other salvation”.

The following scriptures show us that “all men” includes both “saved” and unsaved, and for “us” and the “whole world”.





Not only this when Jesus speaks of His willingness to save, he states that it was “man not him”, that was unwilling.



A Calvinist will say that God chooses some for damnation and others for salvation. Meaning God was unwilling to save the damned that He desired their destruction. That He only had a willingness to save the elect.

But Luke 12:38 above clearly shows that God “desired to save the children of Israel”, but they were in many cases “unwilling”. The following scripture also shows us that God has a willingness to save those who are straying, that contrary to Calvinism, God does not delight in the death of the wicked, that that is not his will.



In light of this, we need to be careful in interpreting scripture in a fatalistic way. For Jesus clearly said “I wanted to gather your children together”, that is God’s will. He wanted salvation for people. But the people “were not willing”.

The same applies today, God wants salvation for all. But often people are not willing to follow Him.

It's okay that Jesus is the Ransom for All, and Christ only Atone for some; right? Ransom is not Atonement...

Expiation is part of the Atonement, and All Sins are not Expiated; though All people were Ransomed...

 

[FutureAndAHope]

It's okay that Jesus is the Ransom for All, and Christ only Atone for some; right? Ransom is not Atonement...

Expiation is part of the Atonement, and All Sins are not Expiated; though All Sins were Ransomed...

Why would God pay the cost for a man, and then choose not to attempt to redeem it? It is like going to a shop, buying an item, then never picking it up.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Have you ever read Calvin? Have you ever studied Calvinism as articulated by Calvinists? Or, are all your sources second- or third-party sources who are not Calvinists?

I ask because these two sentences are NOT an accurate representation of Calvinism and if those two sentences are what you are arguing against then this opening post is a straw man. I also ask because information correcting these mistakes is readily available and easily obtained (Calvin's commentaries and the WCF is available online for free). Introductions like this should never be penned given the availability and ease of access. I also ask because the Holy Spirit does not prompt indwelt people to argue straw men. Only the flesh argues fallacy. God's word commands that we bear true and accurate witness and the first two sentences of this op bear a false witness. I assume you do not want to be arguing a straw man. I assume you do want to have an accurate and correct understanding of anything you critique. I assume you want to be led by the written word and the Holy Spirit and not by prejudiced adversarial extra-biblical sources who may been arguing from their flesh.


So....

Let's start simple, and let's start with something very basic. What are your sources for Calvinism? What have you read or heard?

Conversations on this forum, and many others that I have encountered. How is what I have written not Calavanism? Tell me specifically what I stated incorrectly.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Calvin said the exact same thing. Does that surprise you? It took me 37 seconds to call up the text in question, click on Calvin's commentary, scroll down to the relevant verses and copy and paste Calvin's words into this post. There is no excuse for the openly sentences of this op. There's no excuse for not checking Calvin's commentary on the 1 Timothy 2 text before posting.

Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:3-6 reads, in part, as follows,

"The universal term all must always be referred to classes: of men, and not to persons; as if he had said, that not only Jews, but Gentiles also, not only persons of humble rank, but princes also, were redeemed by the death of Christ. Since, therefore, he wishes the benefit of his death to be common to all, an insult is offered to him by those who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation."


Calvin explicitly stated his opposition to those who argued the Timothy text excluded anyone. All classes of men are included. Calvin explicitly stated it was an "insult" to shut out anyone from the hope of salvation.


Therefore, this opening post is demonstrably incorrect. Either someone taught you wrongly, falsely about Calvinism, or you are the one solely responsible for the mistakes made in this op. Either way, correction is warranted. Calvinism does not teach God caused anyone to sin or chose them or destruction apart from their free will.

Will you now acknowledge what Calvin is shown to have written? Will you now do the factually correct thing and the morally right thing and acknowledge Calvin did, in fact and truth, teach 1 Timothy 2:3-6 teaches no one should be excluded from the hope of the gospel - "all" does mean all?

But does Calvin really believe what he wrote? His doctrine does not give "all" hope of salvation, only the elect. He also believed some were chosen, and elected to damnation. That is not giving all hope.

 

[ReverendRV]

Why would God pay the cost for a man, and then choose not to attempt to redeem it? It is like going to a shop, buying an item, then never picking it up.

Yet, that's what he did...

 

[FutureAndAHope]

All means all ... but what does "ALL" mean?​

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Every - used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception

Warning: The meaning of the words “all” and “every” and “everyone” has been distorted by many to make verses fit the doctrine they prescribe. As these words can refer to ambiguous groupings, it is best to ascertain the specific meaning from scripture that is explicit rather than implicit.
In Scripture the word “all” (as applied to humankind) is used in two senses—absolutely and relatively. In some passages it means all without exception; in others it signifies all without distinction. As to which of these meanings it bears in any particular passage must be determined by the context and decided by a comparison of parallel Scriptures. That the word “all” is used in a relative and restricted sense, and in such case means all without distinction and not all without exception, is clear from a number of Scriptures, from which two or three samples follow: “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). Does this mean that every man, woman and child from “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” were baptized of John in Jordan? Surely not. Again we read, “And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them” (John 8:2); are we to understand this expression absolutely or relatively? Does “all the people” mean all without exception or all without distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of people? Manifestly the latter; for the Temple was not able to accommodate everybody that was in Jerusalem at this time, namely, the Feast of Tabernacles. Author Unknown
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

Examples:

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?
• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?
• 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay [as though He were unable to act] and is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is [extraordinarily] patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. If God did not want anyone to be in hell, then just don’t create them in the first place.

Let's look to the verse above 1 Tim 2:2 what does all really mean.

1Ti 2:2 ForG5228 kings,G935 andG2532 for allG3956 that areG5607 inG1722 authority;G5247 thatG2443 we may leadG1236 a quietG2263 andG2532 peaceableG2272 lifeG979 inG1722 allG3956 godlinessG2150 andG2532 honesty.G4587

1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

All is this Strong's number G3956.

According to your rendering of the term the above scripture would read.

1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in [somewhat] godliness and honesty.

For more references to its usage see https://biblehub.com/greek/pas_3956.htm

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Yet, that's what he did...

It is more like a man purchasing a slave, and then saying "You can come with me if you desire". The choice is then with the slave.

We see this choice in the following. God's desire, God's will was to gather people to Himself, it was a heartfelt desire. This shows what God's willingness is. But it was the people who were not willing.

Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

This shows that verses like ...

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

... do not mean that God separated a group of people before creation to be vessels of wrath, because He wanted to display His anger. According to Luke 13:34 He wanted, even longed to save them. But they were not willing. This shows that the choice is not God's but man's.

Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The wrath of God is rather revealed against those who suppress or push down the knowledge God has given. Wrath is not God's starting point.

 

[David1701]

But does Calvin really believe what he wrote? His doctrine does not give "all" hope of salvation, only the elect. He also believed some were chosen, and elected to damnation. That is not giving all hope.

Hope, in the NT, means "steadfast confidence for the future". Only those who are saved already can have genuine hope, not the lost.

Eph. 2:11,12 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

The Bible is very clear that God has chosen some for salvation and, therefore, not others; but, we don't know who they are, so we preach the gospel without discrimination.

2 Thess. 2:13,14 (KJV)
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[ReverendRV]

It is more like a man purchasing a slave, and then saying "You can come with me if you desire". The choice is then with the slave.

We see this choice in the following. God's desire, God's will was to gather people to Himself, it was a heartfelt desire. This shows what God's willingness is. But it was the people who were not willing.



This shows that verses like ...



... do not mean that God separated a group of people before creation to be vessels of wrath, because He wanted to display His anger. According to Luke 13:34 He wanted, even longed to save them. But they were not willing. This shows that the choice is not God's but man's.



The wrath of God is rather revealed against those who suppress or push down the knowledge God has given. Wrath is not God's starting point.

No, a Ransom is like someone paying a Kidnapper a Ransom; a paid Ransom doesn't unlock chains. The people can leave or stay like Patti Hurst. Expiation is the removal of Sin, and Christ's Ransom doesn't remove Sin...

Right?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

2 Thess. 2:13,14 (KJV)
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It really depends on how you see God. If you see Him as the God who desires all to be saved, but some are unwilling. As is shown by Jesus's words here.

Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Then Paul's words can be seen as stressing that God had a salvation plan for mankind that was hidden from creation. If God truly loves the world as John 3:16 says, then He has preferred or chosen salvation for all those who will follow Him, before creation. In Christ, He has chosen life for us, but our response is still needed. It is a pretty big statement to say God essentially forces life or death on people, especially if His heart is for their salvation.

Eph 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

 

[JIM]

Have you ever read Calvin? Have you ever studied Calvinism as articulated by Calvinists? Or, are all your sources second- or third-party sources who are not Calvinists?

Forget Calvin. The point is that there is a large part of the Christian community today that teaches what is presented in the opening post. And it is wrong. It presents God as a despicable ogre who created this physical universe for the primary purpose of assigning the vast quantity of human beings to eternal condemnation.

 

[makesends]

Forget Calvin. The point is that there is a large part of the Christian community today that teaches what is presented in the opening post. And it is wrong. It presents God as a despicable ogre who created this physical universe for the primary purpose of assigning the vast quantity of human beings to eternal condemnation.

You are dead wrong, there. Calvinism today claims that God created this physical universe for the primary purpose of building the Dwelling Place of God, and the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ — and that, he is doing for his own sake.

Romans 9 gives a very good description of why God created those who in the end go to everlasting torment. It is for the mere purpose of demonstrating his mercy and glory to the objects of his mercy. Apparently you value spiritually dead humanity in some way that God does not, and fail to value what God does create in his image —not to mention that you fail to even approach an understanding of what none of us are capable of fully comprehending: the horror that sin is, and the burning purity of God's holiness is, or the extent of the power of God that is necessary to make alive what was dead.

 

[JIM]

You are dead wrong, there. Calvinism today claims that God created this physical universe for the primary purpose of building the Dwelling Place of God, and the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ — and that, he is doing for his own sake.

You think this physical universe is to be the dwelling place of God? What utter nonsense.

Romans 9 gives a very good description of why God created those who in the end go to everlasting torment. It is for the mere purpose of demonstrating his mercy and glory to the objects of his mercy.

You actually think that God created most of humanity to be condemned to everlasting torment in order to demonstrate His mercy and glorty to the objects of his mercy? And that is what you get from Romans 9? That is really sad.

Apparently you value spiritually dead humanity in some way that God does not, and fail to value what God does create in his image —not to mention that you fail to even approach an understanding of what none of us are capable of fully comprehending: the horror that sin is, and the burning purity of God's holiness is, or the extent of the power of God that is necessary to make alive what was dead.

Nah, nothing like that at all.

What you fail to understand is that God does actually desire that all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). If what you believe is true, then all such statements are lies. The doctrine that you profess has a god that imputes the sin of one man onto all mankind and then corrects the result of that imputation for only some. The only conclusion to such a teaching is that some if not all of those lost are the direct result of God's actions and thus God's fault. Such is what you teach.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

You think this physical universe is to be the dwelling place of God? What utter nonsense.

You actually think that God created most of humanity to be condemned to everlasting torment in order to demonstrate His mercy and glorty to the objects of his mercy? And that is what you get from Romans 9? That is really sad.


Nah, nothing like that at all.

What you fail to understand is that God does actually desire that all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). If what you believe is true, then all such statements are lies. The doctrine that you profess has a god that imputes the sin of one man onto all mankind and then corrects the result of that imputation for only some. The only conclusion to such a teaching is that some if not all of those lost are the direct result of God's actions and thus God's fault. Such is what you teach.

I would be interested in how you reconcile Romans 8 and 9 with the views of God not wanting any to perish etc.

 

[Carbon]

I would be interested in how you reconcile Romans 8 and 9 with the views of God not wanting any to perish etc.

That would be interesting….
Predictable actually

But let’s see

 

[JIM]

I would be interested in how you reconcile Romans 8 and 9 with the views of God not wanting any to perish etc.

It matters not how I reconcile Romans 8 and 9. I only have to read in God's word that He tells us that He wants none to perish. (I listed some of the verses that tells us that.) If your view of Romans 8 and 9 can be reconciled with the view that God does actually want some to perish, then perhaps it is how you have reconciled them wrongly.