All means all

[Iconoclast]

The `kingdom` is the rulership that Israel will have over the nations. The generation when Jesus was manifest on earth should have been the one, (end of the 70 x 7 of chastisement) but they missed that and thus the rulership will go to the generation in Israel when the Lord returns. (Zech. 12: 7 - 10)

No...it was then

 

[makesends]

I get it from John Calvin. Please give some good speculative reasons yourself.

Citation? Quote? I haven't studied Calvin, so I'm curious where he says God did anything for no reason.

 

[makesends]

Says you, not God. And moreover, if that is not the case, then you have God incapable of communicating with His creation.

Hardly. It is not that God is incapable of communicating. It is that we are weak of understanding. Or do you claim to know everything about anything —even everything about even one thing? Of course not! So how do you claim to know how that God's love is the same as ours, or that his desires are?

Even in degree they are not, but also, God is not like man, and so his thoughts are not like ours —but more, he is different in KIND, or in NATURE, from us.

We only resemble him —however poorly we do so— and not he, us.

 

[Josheb]

I thought the subject of the OP was what percentage of humanity receives salvation

No, the subject of the op is actually an undisclosed rag on Calvinism posted through a strawman characature of Calvinism that has very little to do with what Calvinism actually teaches about the four specific verses quoted in the opening post.

- all, some, a few, most, whatever ratio scripture describes. That is what I'm discussing. Isn't that the topic?

It' is a fact not everyone gets saved. I do not believe this forum has established forbidden doctrines, but universalism is generally considered heretical by most so few if any here will post the position everyone eventually will be saved. It does not appear to be a position to which you subscribe, given what I have read so far, so I assume you, me, and most of us here have agreement to that end. It's also a fact no one knows the exact percentage. 49% would still be a minority percentage.

So, no, the topic is not the percentage of those saved. The topic is whether or not the word "all" in verses like 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and Luke 13:34 actually mean "all people all over the whole world who have ever lived." It's proven difficult for some to address those texts exegetically before moving on to tangential matters. It happens a lot in the soteriology (Arm v Cal) board.

For my part, evidence was provided irrefutably showing the "all" in the first passage cited in the op was viewed by Calvin to mean all and not some segmented portion of humanity. No one with a dissenting pov has bothered to address that proof. Relevant to the "narrow gate," clearly not all get saved, even if the gospel is available to all, the metaphor was meant solely for Israel (but applicable to all), and there's a huge multitude rejoicing in the end but they're still a minority percentage.

 

[3 Resurrections]

For my part, evidence was provided irrefutably showing the "all" in the first passage cited in the op was viewed by Calvin to mean all and not some segmented portion of humanity. No one with a dissenting pov has bothered to address that proof. Relevant to the "narrow gate," clearly not all get saved, even if the gospel is available to all, the metaphor was meant solely for Israel (but applicable to all), and there's a huge multitude rejoicing in the end but they're still a minority percentage.

So is there another post dedicated to the correct application of the "narrow gate"? Or should I start one? Because I believe it is very simple to read the scriptures which confine that "narrow gate" to a certain period of history and not to all humanity.

And to reassure you, no, I do not ascribe to universalism - not even for children in utero, who are still considered to be "in Adam" and subjected to the death experience. There will always be the categories of sons versus bastards, wheat versus tares, good fish versus the bad that are thrown away, etc.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Citation? Quote? I haven't studied Calvin, so I'm curious where he says God did anything for no reason.

Calvin says that it is not God's will to reveal everything to us (he is basing that on Moses' statements about what God reveals and retains) and says God's councils are mysterious. Paul says the same thing. If you are interested in interacting with Calvinists on the internet you should familiarise yourself with his writings, otherwise it's harder to communicate. You are capable of reading Calvin yourself, unless there is some reason you don't want to.

By the way, "no reason" if that is what I said, is just the honest position of a person who looks at reality, existence, and Revelation in the Bible and sees Theologians claiming that "mystery" is an adequate explanation in the face of the extremity of an infinite punishment in hell.

 

[makesends]

Calvin says that it is not God's will to reveal everything to us (he is basing that on Moses' statements about what God reveals and retains) and says God's councils are mysterious. Paul says the same thing. If you are interested in interacting with Calvinists on the internet you should familiarise yourself with his writings, otherwise it's harder to communicate. You are capable of reading Calvin yourself, unless there is some reason you don't want to.

By the way, "no reason" if that is what I said, is just the honest position of a person who looks at reality, existence, and Revelation in the Bible and sees Theologians claiming that "mystery" is an adequate explanation in the face of the extremity of an infinite punishment in hell.

In other words, you have no citation of Calvin saying it. And your last paragraph is tantamount to you admitting he doesn't actually say it, but that it is your logic concerning what he does say.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

In other words, you have no citation of Calvin saying it. And your last paragraph is tantamount to you admitting he doesn't actually say it, but that it is your logic concerning what he does say.

I can give citations of Calvin saying it is a mystery. Of course I can do that.

 

[JIM]

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...

deleted

 

[ReverendRV]

deleted

Over the years, I've gotten used to receiving similar responses. I would say something, and there really couldn't be any argument against it. It's as if I stop peoples mouths; but that's what the Word of God does...

So let's use my Post as a starting point; something we agree upon...

ReverendRV said:
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...

It's Biblical to say Jesus is the Ransom for All, right?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Many, many times in scripture, "ALL" means "all without distinction", and not "all without exception". The emphasis on "ALL" I believe was directed to the Jewish mindset which did not consider those unclean Gentiles as ever being able to experience God's grace. The constant drumbeat throughout the NT writings was to emphasize the fact that for the believers in Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile, but they were all one in Christ. Christ had died for all of them without regard to their ethnic standing.

 

[JIM]

Over the years, I've gotten used to receiving similar responses. I would say something, and there really couldn't be any argument against it. It's as if I stop peoples mouths; but that's what the Word of God does...

So let's use my Post as a starting point; something we agree upon...

It's Biblical to say Jesus is the Ransom for All, right?

Yes, Jesus paid the ransom for all, for every single human being that has, is and will live. The ransom price was His death, His shedding of His blood, on the cross. That was atonement. It is there for all. It is God's grace for the taking. It is not forced upon anyone.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, Jesus paid the ransom for all, for every single human being that has, is and will live. The ransom price was His death, His shedding of His blood, on the cross. That was atonement. It is there for all. It is God's grace for the taking. It is not forced upon anyone.

Amen brother...

Then I said the Atonement is Limited. It doesn't matter why we say it's Limited, right? Man can limit it when he says No, or God could limit it before Man can say No; but that's a Debate for another time...

The Atonement is limited, though the Ransom is not limited; right?

 

[JIM]

Amen brother...

Then I said the Atonement is Limited. It doesn't matter why we say it's Limited, right? Man can limit it when he says No, or God could limit it before Man can say No; that's a Debate for another time...

The Atonement is limited, though the Ransom is not limited; right?

You are drawing a distinction between atonement and ransom that I do not. Both are actions by Jesus independent of who accepts.

 

[ReverendRV]

You are drawing a distinction between atonement and ransom that I do not. Both are actions by Jesus independent of who accepts.

What is your reason to not draw a distinction?

 

[JIM]

What is your reason to not draw a distinction?

I don't think the Bible draws the distinction you are trying to make.

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't think the Bible draws the distinction you are trying to make.

I think it does; let me explain...

To start, there is a distinction between the Spelling and the Meaning of Atonement and Ransom; even in the Greek. For now, I'm going to assume you agree this means on some level there is a distinction between these words; right?

Do you have good reason to continue to believe Ransom and Atonement are not distinct?

 

[makesends]

I can give citations of Calvin saying it is a mystery. Of course I can do that.

Is that what I asked? I'm beginning to believe you intended to misrepresent him.

 

[makesends]

Many, many times in scripture, "ALL" means "all without distinction", and not "all without exception". The emphasis on "ALL" I believe was directed to the Jewish mindset which did not consider those unclean Gentiles as ever being able to experience God's grace. The constant drumbeat throughout the NT writings was to emphasize the fact that for the believers in Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile, but they were all one in Christ. Christ had died for all of them without regard to their ethnic standing.

It can also mean that if any are to be ransomed, it is by Christ Jesus. There is no other ransom for any.

 

[Josheb]

So is there another post dedicated to the correct application of the "narrow gate"? Or should I start one?

A new one should be started.