fallacies of "non-cals"

[Luke2427]

#1. The ridiculous notion that the terms "all" and "whole world" mean every single person is a terrible fallacy.
It is ridiculous because those terms hardly EVER mean every single person.
The Whole world supports Japan
Japan’s rebirth will benefit the whole world

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.


I could literally go on and on with these examples where this terminology is used as it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with every single person.

In fact when it does refer to PEOPLE it USUALLY refers to a significant MINORITY of the people who make up the human race.

There are times when it DOES refer to every single person but that fact is usually made plain in the text with language like "all men EVERYWHERE", etc...

But this is one of the "non-cals" strongest arguments for their opposition to Calvinism.

It just does not hold water.


I'll add more later. If I do too much in a post most of it will get ignored.

 

[Tater77]

In John 3:16, the Greek word for world used is κόσμον, (kosmon or kosmos), root to the English "cosmos" which is pretty all encompassing.

Meaning the planet / all creation under the sun, which "should" include all people.

Now a verse like Luke 2:1 uses the Greek word οἰκουμένην (oikoumenēn) which means the land / inhabited world. In this context the Roman empire. The same word is used in Matt 24:14.

So yes, John 3:16 DOES mean the whole world that is the planet including everyone in it.

 

[Luke2427]

In John 3:16, the Greek word for world used is κόσμον, (kosmon or kosmos), root to the English "cosmos" which is pretty all encompassing.

Meaning the planet / all creation under the sun, which "should" include all people.

Now a verse like Luke 2:1 uses the Greek word οἰκουμένην (oikoumenēn) which means the land / inhabited world. In this context the Roman empire. The same word is used in Matt 24:14.

So yes, John 3:16 DOES mean the whole world that is the planet including everyone in it.

Cosmos does not mean every single person and I guarantee you you cannot find one reputable Greek scholar who would say that it MUST.

Even taking that it means the whole planet does not help your case any.

If it means WHOLE PLANET then it means roaches and snails and eels and every creature on earth. It means rocks and hills. If it means everything in the planet then the verse is WORTHLESS.

WHOLE PLANET does not refer to every single person on earth.

To force it to is a haphazard and terribly flawed hermeneutic.

Add to this the ridiculous number of times the word has NOTHING at all to do with humans in the Bible and you have no argument.

The best you can do is say, "It means the every single person cause I want it to."

That's all you have.

It rarely means that. To force it to is manipulation with the goal of trying to make the Bible say what YOU want it to say.

The word ACTUALLY is very general and refers to the world as a place MOST of the time.

Here are the definitions given for the word and not one of them has ANYTHING to do with EVERY SINGLE PERSON:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

Even number 5 speaks of the general human race and not every single individual person who makes it up.

One of numerous examples of the word "kosmos" being used to OBVIOUSLY refer to far less than every single individual on planet earth is Jhn 12:19 The Pharisees 5330 therefore 3767 said 2036 among 4314 themselves 1438, Perceive ye 2334 how 3754 ye prevail 5623 nothing 3756 3762? behold 2396, the world2889 is gone 565 after 3694 him 846.

Here is another: Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit 4151 of truth 225; whom 3739 the world2889 cannot 3756 1410 receive 2983 , because 3754 it seeth 2334 him 846 not 3756, neither 3761 knoweth 1097 him 846: but 1161 ye 5210 know 1097 him 846; for 3754 he dwelleth 3306 with 3844 you 5213, and 2532 shall be 2071 in 1722 you 5213.

Notice "the world" (kosmos) cannot receive him but "ye know him". So obviously world there does not refer to every single person on the planet!

And another:
Jhn 14:19 Yet 2089 a little while 3397, and 2532 the world2889 seeth 2334 me 3165 no more 3765; but 1161 ye 5210 see 2334 me 3165: because 3754 I 1473 live 2198 , ye 5210 shall live 2198 also 2532.

Was Jesus purporting that up until that time EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH was seeing Him????
Of course not! The notion is so absurd that one would have to be senseless to push John 3:16 to mean every single person on the earth just because it uses the word KOSMOS! That is utterly, indescribably absurd.

THIS is the kind of hermeneutic that keeps "non-cal" teaching alive.

And yet another:

Jhn 16:20 Verily 281, verily 281, I say 3004 unto you 5213, That 3754 ye 5210 shall weep 2799 and 2532 lament 2354 , but 1161 the world2889 shall rejoice 5463 : and 1161 ye 5210 shall be sorrowful 3076 , but 235 your 5216 sorrow 3077 shall be turned 1096 into 1519 joy 5479.

The disciples are weeping while THE WORLD (kosmos) are rejoicing here. Question: are the disciples not human??

If they are then abandon once and for all this ridiculous notion that (kosmos) must mean every single person on earth.

It almost NEVER means that. Not in the Bible and not anywhere else.

Whenever we say "whole world" we almost NEVER mean every single person on earth.

The only reason ANYBODY would try to make it every single person is to support this man made doctrine of "non-calvinism"- or whatever you want to call it.



One more example:

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Do you think Paul thought that the Incas were speaking of the faith of the Christians in Rome?

Do you think that even a MAJORITY of the people of earth were speaking of their faith???

Of course not!

What an absurd notion.

In fact, Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit KNEW that the VAST majority of the human race had no knowledge whatsoever of the faith of these Christians. Yet he uses the words "holos kosmos" or "entire world".

WORLD ALMOST NEVER MEANS EVERY SINGLE PERSON.

It rarely even refers to a majority of the human race.

Go back to the drawing board.

You have no support for your case that John 3:16 must be speaking of every single person on earth because it uses the word (kosmos).

You cling to it for no other reason than it suits you.

 

[Rippon]

So yes, John 3:16 DOES mean the whole world that is the planet including everyone in it.

Including Satan and the demons?

 

[Jim1999]

Gotta love Greek lessons.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This board has got to love you Luke......you bring controversy thus readership! You will get letters!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[sag38]

Luke, you have not posted anything in quite a while and yet when you do come back you come in and immediately go on the attack. Your method does nothing but to drive those who disagree with you further away. Their ten foot pole gets longer and longer when they read such rants. It does nothing to further your argument except for those who already agree with you.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

You are making a simple mistake. You are assuming they had the same knowledge of the world as we do today. In their time and place the Roman Empire was the world.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

In today's world with radio. TV, cell phones, the Internet, etc., etc. the entire world has been preached to. Not in this verse it says "shall be" which is future tense.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

There is no logic in your placing this verse here.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Again the Roman Empire was their world. We really do not know how much of the world Paul or others were aware of. So we cannot judge their words by present day knowledge.

I see no way your premise holds.

 

[Allan]

Cosmos does not mean every single person and I guarantee you you cannot find one reputable Greek scholar who would say that it MUST.
.....................

WORLD ALMOST NEVER MEANS EVERY SINGLE PERSON.

It rarely even refers to a majority of the human race.

Seems you can't even agree with yourself... and for the record, there are MANY reputable scholars who attest to the FACT that world 'can' and does 'at times' (in scripture) mean - all people, of which you state you agreement to above..

What you present is a misunderstanding perpetuated by many who know very little about the other sides views or their arguments. There are 'very' few non-cals or Arminians who state that 'all' always means 'everyone, since it can mean either all of a thing/whole OR all of a part of a thing/whole; or that "world" always at all time means ALL mankind. Just because it has varied definitions (not contradicting ones) I do agree with you that one does not or should not pick and choose which best fits their view or theological position.

There is one silly non-biblical definition of "world" that is commonly 'tried' to be perpetuated but has no historical substance to it.. and that is the term "world" can mean or refer to 'God's elect'.

 

[psalms109:31]

World

I think Pink had a lot of good things to say , but when it comes to his version of world I will have to disagree. When you can't comprehend God, does not mean you need to fit into your doctrine or say God really didn't mean that He meant is this. Does that remind you of someone?

When man say's he loved the world he means all he sees. When God said He loved the world that He sent His Son, He means all He sees. We know what God wants, He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. All meaning all He sees. That will not trump the will of God which is those who trust in His Son be saved.

Exodus 19:
5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God;I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,- "that is, some men": as if the Holy Spirit could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."C.H. Spurgeon

 

[Rippon]

There is one silly non-biblical definition of "world" that is commonly 'tried' to be perpetuated but has no historical substance to it.. and that is the term "world" can mean or refer to 'God's elect'.

No historical substance? Quite the contrary. Snips follow regarding what some saints of the past said of the meaning of the word "world" in John 3:16.

F.Turretin : special towards a few

John Flavel : the elect of God in the world. The world signifies the elect :because they are scattered through all parts,and are among all ranks in this world;these are the objects of this love."

Owen : the special love of God to His elect

Pink : the world of God's people

S.Rutherford : the special particular love of God commensurable with election. The love in John 3:16 "is restricted to the church...It is an actual saving love love and therefore not a general love."

L. Boettner : the elect in the whole world

Gill : the object of God's special love

James Durham : world doesn't mean all men

 

[JesusFan]

#1. The ridiculous notion that the terms "all" and "whole world" mean every single person is a terrible fallacy.
It is ridiculous because those terms hardly EVER mean every single person.
The Whole world supports Japan
Japan’s rebirth will benefit the whole world

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.


I could literally go on and on with these examples where this terminology is used as it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with every single person.

In fact when it does refer to PEOPLE it USUALLY refers to a significant MINORITY of the people who make up the human race.

There are times when it DOES refer to every single person but that fact is usually made plain in the text with language like "all men EVERYWHERE", etc...

But this is one of the "non-cals" strongest arguments for their opposition to Calvinism.

It just does not hold water.


I'll add more later. If I do too much in a post most of it will get ignored.

Think better question in relation to your points is:

IF Jesus died for the sins of ALl people, unlimited atonement in its extent (Which I do believe is taught in Bible)

Is His Will that ALL should come to repentance and faith in same way?

otherwords, can it be that God just might have different ways ALL gets expressed, that he may have a general/specific Will being address...

general Will Jesus died/atoned for indeed ALL
specific Will Just those elected/chosen By God have atoning work applied on their behalf?

 

[webdog]

No historical substance? Quite the contrary. Snips follow regarding what some saints of the past said of the meaning of the word "world" in John 3:16.

F.Turretin : special towards a few

John Flavel : the elect of God in the world. The world signifies the elect :because they are scattered through all parts,and are among all ranks in this world;these are the objects of this love."

Owen : the special love of God to His elect

Pink : the world of God's people

S.Rutherford : the special particular love of God commensurable with election. The love in John 3:16 "is restricted to the church...It is an actual saving love love and therefore not a general love."

L. Boettner : the elect in the whole world

Gill : the object of God's special love

James Durham : world doesn't mean all men

That is historical substance?

 

[Allan]

No historical substance? Quite the contrary. Snips follow regarding what some saints of the past said of the meaning of the word "world" in John 3:16.

F.Turretin : special towards a few

John Flavel : the elect of God in the world. The world signifies the elect :because they are scattered through all parts,and are among all ranks in this world;these are the objects of this love."

Owen : the special love of God to His elect

Pink : the world of God's people

S.Rutherford : the special particular love of God commensurable with election. The love in John 3:16 "is restricted to the church...It is an actual saving love love and therefore not a general love."

L. Boettner : the elect in the whole world

Gill : the object of God's special love

James Durham : world doesn't mean all men

There is NO historical substance here regarding the words known usage from the Greek, Rippon.

I'm referring to the word's known historical definition(s), IOW - how the word was used 'historically' in the Greek, not people almost two thousand years later wishing to 'add' a new definition to those already established.

 

[Skandelon]

#1. The ridiculous notion that the terms "all" and "whole world" mean every single person is a terrible fallacy.
It is ridiculous because those terms hardly EVER mean every single person.

I agree that the terms "all" and "whole world" don't always mean every person, however you must acknowledge, if you are being objective, that they are "inclusive" not "exclusive" terms and thus could not mean "a select few." One must look at the context in which the words are being used to make the determination of the author's intent. So, while you may be correct in your assessment that "all" and "whole world" doesn't always mean every individual, you also can't say that these terms have ever been used to mean "a selected few." That is a presumption you bring to the text which is your fallacy.

There are times when it DOES refer to every single person but that fact is usually made plain in the text with language like "all men EVERYWHERE", etc..

Actually, even that phrase doesn't always mean every individual in the world. For example:

Acts 21:28:
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Obviously he hadn't taught every single person in the world. But, look at the point. It is inclusive. He is saying that the gospel is being preached without exclusion...to every one without discrimination. Now, Calvinists typically don't have a problem with that interpretation when it comes to the gospel because you agree that it is to be preached to all without exception. However, when we look at verse about the atonement or God's love/desire etc, the method of interpretation changes from "inclusion" (all with out exception) to "exclusive" (a select few). It is just inconsistent.

But this is one of the "non-cals" strongest arguments for their opposition to Calvinism

Not even close.

I'll add more later. If I do too much in a post most of it will get ignored.

Good to have you back Luke. BTW, I'm still wanting to hear your response to the question regarding Christ's need in hiding the gospel if men are born totally depraved.

 

[Skandelon]

Seems you can't even agree with yourself... and for the record, there are MANY reputable scholars who attest to the FACT that world 'can' and does 'at times' (in scripture) mean - all people, of which you state you agreement to above..

What you present is a misunderstanding perpetuated by many who know very little about the other sides views or their arguments. There are 'very' few non-cals or Arminians who state that 'all' always means 'everyone, since it can mean either all of a thing/whole OR all of a part of a thing/whole; or that "world" always at all time means ALL mankind. Just because it has varied definitions (not contradicting ones) I do agree with you that one does not or should not pick and choose which best fits their view or theological position.

There is one silly non-biblical definition of "world" that is commonly 'tried' to be perpetuated but has no historical substance to it.. and that is the term "world" can mean or refer to 'God's elect'.

I neglected to read through all the thread before responding, so I could have just wrote, "What he said." :thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree that the terms "all" and "whole world" don't always mean every person, however you must acknowledge, if you are being objective, that they are "inclusive" not "exclusive" terms and thus could not mean "a select few." One must look at the context in which the words are being used to make the determination of the author's intent. So, while you may be correct in your assessment that "all" and "whole world" doesn't always mean every individual, you also can't say that these terms have ever been used to mean "a selected few." That is a presumption you bring to the text which is your fallacy.

Actually, even that phrase doesn't always mean every individual in the world. For example:

Acts 21:28:
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Obviously he hadn't taught every single person in the world. But, look at the point. It is inclusive. He is saying that the gospel is being preached without exclusion...to every one without discrimination. Now, Calvinists typically don't have a problem with that interpretation when it comes to the gospel because you agree that it is to be preached to all without exception. However, when we look at verse about the atonement or God's love/desire etc, the method of interpretation changes from "inclusion" (all with out exception) to "exclusive" (a select few). It is just inconsistent.

Not even close.



Good to have you back Luke. BTW, I'm still wanting to hear your response to the question regarding Christ's need in hiding the gospel if men are born totally depraved.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that the terms "all" and "whole world" don't always mean every person, however you must acknowledge, if you are being objective, that they are "inclusive" not "exclusive" terms and thus could not mean "a select few." One must look at the context in which the words are being used to make the determination of the author's intent. So, while you may be correct in your assessment that "all" and "whole world" doesn't always mean every individual, you also can't say that these terms have ever been used to mean "a selected few." That is a presumption you bring to the text which is your fallacy.

Actually, even that phrase doesn't always mean every individual in the world. For example:

Acts 21:28:
shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."

Obviously he hadn't taught every single person in the world. But, look at the point. It is inclusive. He is saying that the gospel is being preached without exclusion...to every one without discrimination. Now, Calvinists typically don't have a problem with that interpretation when it comes to the gospel because you agree that it is to be preached to all without exception. However, when we look at verse about the atonement or God's love/desire etc, the method of interpretation changes from "inclusion" (all with out exception) to "exclusive" (a select few). It is just inconsistent.

Not even close.



Good to have you back Luke. BTW, I'm still wanting to hear your response to the question regarding Christ's need in hiding the gospel if men are born totally depraved.

Just curious in how you define term "total depravity"

 

[Skandelon]

Just curious in how you define term "total depravity"

That was a topic of another thread and I don't wish to hijack this one, so please ask that in another related thread. Thanks

 

[Alive in Christ]

Almighty God is crystal clear in His scriptures that it is not His will that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance, and faith in Christ alone.

God can and does cause that saving truth to come to all, with the "drawing" and convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Those who freely choose to heed Gods message will be saved.

Those who freely choose to reject Gods message will be lost

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ