John 12:32 - "all men"

If there are any who are going to say...well in my bible all men means all men..

A follow up question...as Jesus was being lifted up on the cross....at that moment...how did he draw;

all men living around the world?

all men who had died already earlier that week?

The world of the ungodly that were destroyed by the flood?

Pharoahs army that perished in the Red Sea?

 

Yes.

When we refuse to give the Bible the same respect we would a common newspaper by not using care when reading it, how can we expect to gain the truth we seek?

 

Friends,

I am a bit grieved at the contortions some of the more rabid Calvinistic thinkers become when approaching in particular the book of John. It isn’t like more appropriate Scriptures could be found in support of the views without using John 12:32.



1) This area shows a contention between the rulers theology of exclusion (that was taught to the Jews (still is) and accepted by even the apostles) and that missionary goal of Christ that is inclusion.

2) Throughout John’s writings, he is most precise in accurately reporting statements, even when the high priest in the exuberance says, “See, the world is going after him!” the Jewish custom of exclusion meant it as high scorn more then that of being dismayed. The Jews were and typically are racist and exclusionary in their customs and religion, even to this day.

Therefore, when the apostles brought news to the Lord that gentiles wanted to visit with Him, Jesus turns the rulers exclusionary views against them (and by extension the attitude of the apostles) by confirming the exuberance of the high priest statement was indeed the truth. He would indeed draw all when He was lifted up.

Here is the issue.

Some on the B.B. do not attend to keeping the context, but ripe a verse out and bluster something that isn’t foundationally supportable. Usually, imo, this is a fault of the non-Cal.

However, this (imo) is not exclusively a non-Cal problem. If the Cal. folks are honest, they too would need to readjust some thinking that the Dutch Reformers extended far too far.

It is time for all sides to seriously look upon the issues of confrontation to find agreement.

The context of John 12:32 obliges that “all” be all. Not a select few as the religious unrighteous rulers distained, but all inclusive of all people without distinction of class, social standing, education, culture ... all. Not a subset of the all, and not a subset of the subset.

Not a few of all kinds, but all of all kinds. There is no theological nor original language usage to warrant the all be in any manner limited.

Do not be found as the rulers who imposed inappropriate limits. Be as Christ willingly proclaiming the gospel is for all.

This is not teaching “universalism” and such a complaint is unworthy of biblical scholarship. It is taking the truth of the Scriptures with out prejudice or bias.

That all are NOT drawn by the Father, does not diminish the all in Christ’s statement.

Remember the little children who desired to come see Jesus?

Paul told his own testimony before Felix because Felix was drawn to find out more, if for no other reason then his curiosity.

All the Father draws will be saved. Of the all the son draws many will not, but those the Father has given the Son will.

The draw is real. All, of all cultures, races, classes, with no distinction. The draw is without distinction or limit. However, the draw of Christ is NOT to be seen as that draw of the Father.

Two last thoughts:

First Lastly, do not allow the agenda driven folks to drive theology.

Second Lastly, do not depart from “why” the Christ said what He did. It was not said to focus upon who would or would not be drawn, but upon the type of death He would die.

“33But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.”
​

“As much as is within you, be at peace with all men.” The “all” in that verse does not mean a select few with whom you agree.

 

No one argues with the scope of the word all...it goes worldwide as the OP sets it forth.

Agedman.....who used the term select few?
I did not see that term put forth in a positive way.

 

We will never agree BUT we can be in harmony concerning our fellow man and God's forgiveness.

A song sung in harmony can be the epitome of beauty.

Both C and A know the importance of the salvation of human beings (apart from salvific methodology).
Both C and A have a history of participating in Great Awakening(s) with many souls added to the churches.
Both C and A have participated in the Great Commission to preach the Gospel, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to Jew and Gentile alike.

Three part harmony, this is what we can do in spite of our differing views.

HankD

 

I feel as if someone will soon start singing, "Cume by Ya".

 

You lead!

HankD

 

Ok I’ll start but y’all gotta hold up your end.

Here is a sing along you might enjoy.

 

Oh I for got the vocal,exercises.

La,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,laaaaaa

Da,me, ne po, to, la, be, da, me, ne, po, to, laaaaaa,

 

W.A. Criswell's FBC Dallas Rainbow Youth Choir:

 

beautiful.

HankD

 

OK!!

HankD

 

Is that real??? Do people really do this??? This is revolting.