all about 'ALL'

[Amy.G]

There is often much truth in humor. His point is well taken, even if it's intended to be funny. Jesus is one exception. All cannot therefore mean all, because it's all minus one. This is true, even if it's kind of cute to pose it that way.

Only if you believe that Jesus was just a man. But Jesus is God and not in need of salvation. Therefore, all still refers to all sinful men in need of a Savior.

 

[npetreley]

Only if you believe that Jesus was just a man. But Jesus is God and not in need of salvation. Therefore, all still refers to all sinful men in need of a Savior.

Jesus doesn't need to be just a man to be included in all. All He needs to be is a man. Jesus didn't say "I will draw all men except myself to me," or "I will draw all men who aren't also God". But it was truth in humor, and being humor-based, I'm not going to argue about it. There's plenty of other evidence, including the scriptures I quoted, that prove limited atonement.

 

[Amy.G]

Jesus doesn't need to be just a man to be included in all. All He needs to be is a man. Jesus didn't say "I will draw all men except myself to me," or "I will draw all men who aren't also God". But it was truth in humor, and being humor-based, I'm not going to argue about it. There's plenty of other evidence, including the scriptures I quoted, that prove limited atonement.

 

[Allan]

How about this?

Was Jesus a Man? Yes. Then Jesus did not die for all men. A limited atonement again proved.
Jesus did not draw Himself to Himself therefore He did not draw all men. 'all doesn't mean all' always, does it? No it doesn't. All fall short but Jesus the Man. All have gone astray but Jesus the Man.

In all these examples 'all' must be modified by Christ. All but One means not all.

Whatcha think, good a?

john.

Scripture also says:
for "ALL" have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Does "all" mean "all", as in EVERY man - then you testify Jesus must be included and a sinner.
Does "all" mean "all", as in all sort and types of men, Then you testify that some men are born without sin and other are not. - So Jesus is just like some of the other men, But still just a man and ONLY a man.

However, Jesus died for "all" mankind because 'man' was and is in sin BUT NOT for himself as He had no sin. He GAVE His life FOR ours. So He is excluded from the "all" in this because He is not like ALL mankind (sinners) but God .

Therefore - if He died for "all" mankind. It is obvious he did not die for himself since He gave Himself for them. Scripture excludes Jesus because Jesus is the one doing the dieing on behalf of everyone else. So here "all" meaning every single person is still in view. as every single person is for whom Christ died on their behalf.

 

[Allan]

Allan , the English words "all" and "world' have as much variety as the word "spot' -- many meanings , depending on the context .

World does not.

It has only two main definitions with variations of each.
i.e. geographically [world] - the earth - variation - (Roman world) localized geography

and

i.e. wicked sinful people

It has only two scritpural meanings that are established and conisistantly used in the OT and continued as such in the NT.

 

[Humblesmith]

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 5:18

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Now these verses both give a parallel. They parallel those that died and those for whom Christ died. This is true because the sentence structure is parallel.

Both these passages say that all came into condemndation, and all died. And they both say that the free gift came upon all men, and that he died for all. Now I honestly don't see how one can shoehorn these verses to say anything else. The only way to deny universal atonement and support particular (limited) atonement from these verses is to say that all means all in the first half of the sentence, all means some in the last half of the sentence.

I cannot support a hermeneutic that changes meaning of the same word in the same sentence by the same author, in order to fit passages into a theology.

In reality, in these verses the word "all" does not change meaning in the midst of the sentence. They support universal atonement. The limited, particular part is only limited by those who accept or reject the free gift by their faith.

 

[Allan]

I don't get this. Didn't Christ actually become the substitutionary sacrifice for some, not just a potential substitute? Did He actually take away anyone's sins when He died?

study the OT atonement.
It was made for ALL of the People of Israel but not all of the People of Israel were followers of God. Only a portion of the total blood offered was used upon the horns of the alter but the rest was poured out at the base of the alter and was trampled upon. All of the blood was given for the atonement of ALL the People but only a portion was actually applied becuase only a portion were true beleivers. The rest was poured out sybolically refering to their damnation for rejection. The same concerning the sacrifice of Christ.

When and where can "many" mean "all" mankind?
I didn't take time to look it up, that's why I'm asking.

It is in post #28.

 

[Allan]

Sorry, I can't find the verse that says all are called but not all are chosen. My Bible says MANY are called but FEW are chosen.

Read the story. The Jews as a people were called first and they said "No" (rejected His calling) then the call was to be give to everyone else (no particular people).
Lets see -
Jewish people = A
non-jewish = LL

Jewish (A) + non-Jewish (LL) = World ("ALL") :laugh:

I noticed you carefully avoided ALL of the scriptures I quoted. You only dealt with my side-comment about many are called. I think the reason you avoided them is obvious but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about it.

I answered you and did not avoid anything. It is you, my firend, who does not deal with scriptures given :thumbs: but write to the effect "oh yeah, well what about....."

It doesn't have to refer to the elect in this case. It can refer to "from among all nations, including those you've never even heard of". Again, that's why translations often translate "all men" to "all peoples".

Are you actaully trying to say "whole world" means from all nations, including those you have never seen before?? Seriously or are you joking because I hope you are joking. You need to look it up if that is the case because you are truly clueless or at least without knowledge.

The translations do not translate "world" or "whole world" into "all peoples" (as in all types of people). Try agian.

Your rudeness and blindness aren't worth dealing with.

This coming from YOU :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Allan , you and SP are becoming more alike as time goes by .

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

I guess many does not mean "all" here huh. Only some are dead in their trespasses and sins because of Adam, and since the writter used it specifically in one sence regarding many so to he meant it in the later. Even some other Calvinists agree with that! It is simply the proper mode of interpretation.

I thought that the "many" in Rom. 5:15 is the "many" to which God's grace and gift of Christ have "overflown" to.
IOW, the many who died by the trespass of man one are the many who partake of God's grace which came through Christ. Verse 17 speaks of it also:

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

I'm not going to argue this, I was just curious about the "many" able to mean "all" statement.

 

[johnp.]

Ro 11:12 - Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Paul was always contrasting two groups, the world and the Jew.

RO 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

Check mate surely?

It has only two main definitions with variations of each.

an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
the world, the universe
the circle of the earth, the earth
the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
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
any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19 (Strong.)

john.

 

[johnp.]

So here "all" meaning every single person is still in view. as every single person is for whom Christ died on their behalf.

So all men still means all men but One? Then it's not all men is it Allan? I don't think I can recall which 'all men' we were discussing?

The rest was poured out sybolically refering to their damnation for rejection.

That is unscriptural. RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Can you explain your discrepency please? Can you explain what happens now to, The rest was poured out sybolically refering to their damnation for rejection., as condemnation comes by being in the first Adam?

john.

 

[russell55]

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 5:18

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Now these verses both give a parallel. They parallel those that died and those for whom Christ died. This is true because the sentence structure is parallel.

Both these passages say that all came into condemndation, and all died. And they both say that the free gift came upon all men, and that he died for all. Now I honestly don't see how one can shoehorn these verses to say anything else. The only way to deny universal atonement and support particular (limited) atonement from these verses is to say that all means all in the first half of the sentence, all means some in the last half of the sentence.

I cannot support a hermeneutic that changes meaning of the same word in the same sentence by the same author, in order to fit passages into a theology.

Then what do you make of this verse?

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15: 22

Doesn't that prove too much if the two alls refer to the same group of people?

And your Romans 5:18 verse also proves too much if you make the groups included in the all coextensive:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

If the groups are equal, then everyone who has ever lived is justified and has life in Christ.

I think a better way to look at these passages with the Adam/Christ motif is to see that it's all in Adam contrasted with all in Christ.

 

[Ed Edwards]

1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV1611 Edition)
For as in Adam all die,
euen so in Christ shall
all be made aliue.

Russell55: //I think a better way to look at these passages
with the Adam/Christ motif is to see that it's all in Adam
contrasted with all in Christ.//

Amen, Sister Russell55 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

What is the specified set set about in Adam is said?
Answer: all die.

What is the specified set about which
in Christ is said?
Answer: all be made aliue.

So Sister Russell55 is all RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

[Humblesmith]

To Russell55:

You make good points, and ask good questions.

Of course, we would deny universalism. So we don't want the verses to prove too much. But I think there is an answer.....

First, the Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5 passages that I quoted, and the point I was trying to make, were about atonement.......universal vs. limited. In that context, I still think it safe to say that those verses disprove universal atonement. They show that the atonement is available to all men, but the verses do not say that the atonement applies to all men.

Your question about 1 Cor. 15:22 is a good one.......I think the verse answers it, though. Those "in Christ" shall be made alive........those who are saved. The Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5 verses merely say that "he dies for all" and "the free gift came upon all men." They do not say that all men accepted the gift.

Your question about Rom. 5:18 is valid........and many smarter folks than I have attempted answers. My personal opinion is that the phrase "not like" (v.16) means that the parallel that Paul is drawing is not a perfect parallel.
But it is admittedly a difficult passage, but in any case, the parallel is a clear one, and the word "all" cannot change meaning in the midst of a sentence.

 

[russell55]

To Russell55:

You make good points, and ask good questions.

Of course, we would deny universalism. So we don't want the verses to prove too much. But I think there is an answer.....

First, the Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5 passages that I quoted, and the point I was trying to make, were about atonement.......universal vs. limited. In that context, I still think it safe to say that those verses disprove universal atonement. They show that the atonement is available to all men, but the verses do not say that the atonement applies to all men.

Your question about 1 Cor. 15:22 is a good one.......I think the verse answers it, though. Those "in Christ" shall be made alive........those who are saved.

Exactly. And I think that same sort of "in Christ" and "in Adam" idea is in all of Paul's Adam/Christ passages, or else you do get universal salvation.

The Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5 verses merely say that "he dies for all" and "the free gift came upon all men." They do not say that all men accepted the gift.

Actually, it doesn't say anything about free gift in verse 18. Those words are added by the translators, and if your version has them, they should be italicised. They are added to avoid universalism, but I think a better way than adding phrases (and most versions don't) is to understand that Paul is using his "in Christ" and "in Adam" idea again. Adam's one offense brought condemnation to everyone comprehended in Adam, and Christ's one act of righteousness brought justification and life to all those comprehended in him.

Your question about Rom. 5:18 is valid........and many smarter folks than I have attempted answers. My personal opinion is that the phrase "not like" (v.16) means that the parallel that Paul is drawing is not a perfect parallel.

Well, the parallel is a contrasting one, for sure. What Adam does, Christ does, but in an opposite direction. The real difference, though, and the one directly connected to the "not like", is that what Christ does, he does more completely ("much more"). But in every case, they are the same sort of thing.

But it is admittedly a difficult passage, but in any case, the parallel is a clear one, and the word "all" cannot change meaning in the midst of a sentence.

It doesn't change meaning any more than it does in 1 Corinthians 15. It still means all, it's just all of a different group--all in Adam on the one hand, and all in Christ on the other.

Question: When you interpret verse 19, do you see the many as coextensive groups?

 

[russell55]

Amen, Sister Russell55 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

So Sister Russell55 is all RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Humblesmith]

Question: When you interpret verse 19, do you see the many as coextensive groups?

I think it's a difficult concept, any way you slice it. And I'm not 100% sure what the word "coextensive" implies. But I think that the only way to be consistent and not change meanings in mid-sentence is to say that in the first half of the verse "many" means "all are sinners," (which is clear) and then in the second half of the verse "many" is somehow, in some sense, applied to everyone, just as it says. (which is not crystal clear) Again, we can't change meanings in mid-sentence.

So the question is then what does it mean that all are made righteous? Clearly, not all are saved, nor are all put in a right relationship with God. So somehow, in some sense, this verse says something about original sin and it's implications to all humans. Bottom line: I'm not 100% sure of all it's implications. It could mean something about original sin, or my inherited guilt vs. the guilt from my own sin, which is what I suspect that Paul was implying. v.12 sets the context of the paragraph: we inherited sin through Adam, and we also all have sinned. So v.19 is in this context. The overall flow of the passage in v.12 to 21 is that Christ died for all, reversing the curse that Adam created. I don't claim to know all of the implications of this.

I'm sure of one thing: It means Paul is smarter than me :tongue3:

And I'm sure of one other thing: whatever it means, it does not contradict what he clearly said earlier in the chapter. The clear portion earlier flatly contradicts limited atonement. So we don't take the verses that are not fully explained and use them to unpack the verses that are clear.

 

[Humblesmith]

Well, the parallel is a contrasting one, for sure. What Adam does, Christ does, but in an opposite direction. The real difference, though, and the one directly connected to the "not like", is that what Christ does, he does more completely ("much more"). But in every case, they are the same sort of thing.


It doesn't change meaning any more than it does in 1 Corinthians 15. It still means all, it's just all of a different group--all in Adam on the one hand, and all in Christ on the other.
quote]

I agree that the emphasis is on the same sort of thing. This is the central thrust of the passage, and a concept that we often forget.

But also, the qualifiers ("all men" and "died for all") must be taken in a consistent sense. They mean "all men" and "died for all." They do not mean "some men" and "died for some" because the first half of the sentences demands "all men." There's no grammatical evidence here that Paul switches to a "different group" in mid-sentence.

However, as you correctly pointed out, the "In Christ" statement in 1 Cor. 15:22 clearly puts a qualifier of Christians into that sentence. This is not there in Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5.

 

[Allan]

Ro 11:12 - Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

You don't know much about context do you??
You quote one liners (proof-texts) all the time as though they are your clinchers.
All one has to do to disprove your theories is read the chapter to get the context which always shows your errors.

Here is no different. I guess you are assuming that the "world" is the elect and the "Gentiles" are the sinners. Wrong! They are one and the same.
It is basically saying - If an event so aweful as Israel's fall was the occasion of such unspeakable good to the Gentile world, of how much greater good may we expect an event so blessed as their full recovery to be productive?
Else how can the pagan gentiles and saved elect both be recipients of the riches garnered by the both the fall and reduction of Israel.

But don't forget that Paul was speaking of Gentiles and the fall of Israel in just the verse previously

Rom 11:11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Paul is not speaking of the Elect but the gentile world being the recipient of the blessed richness, BUT... it is for a SPECIFIC purpose and that is to bring the Gentiles unto Himself AND for the coming backof Israel as a Nation unto the Lord. Remember chapter 9 is Israel history, 10 is Israel at Pauls present time, and 11 deals with their future.
And so the following verses keep this same contention of salvation coming to the gentile world and Israels coming back.

Paul was always contrasting two groups, the world and the Jew.

In the verse you quote, Paul was not contrasting the Jew with the world but the "world" (sinners) with the "those in Christ" (saved) This has nothing to do with Rom 11:12 since that is speaking of Israel being removed for the Gentile worlds benifit but that the Jews as a Nation will be brought BACK into the Covenant Relationship they were once removed from.

RO 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

Check mate surely?

I don't know who Surely is (remember - I'm Allan) so you must have me confused with someone else you are playing and actaully winning for a change. :laugh:

an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
the world, the universe
the circle of the earth, the earth
the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
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
any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19 (Strong.)

john.

Unfortunately you quote from someone who has a partially flawed understanding of scriptural meaning of the word "world" and its biblical, consistant, and literal meaning ESTABLISHED BY SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Most specifically they fail HORRIBLY when trying to say "world" refers to believers. It is thier theology that can not allow for the consisant and biblical meaning set forth in the OT when relating to man.

But except for that...how does the rest contradict what I stated concerning the word "world", that being:
"It has only two main definitions with variations of each."
Or is it a sad attempt to try to say "world" must mean "saved" because this person says so...

the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19 particulars of any sort
the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews

The scripture sets forth in the majority of itself a predetermined definition that is consistant throught the OT and NEVER used as Gods people. But becuase it conflicts with your theology you must change it or else your theology must change. Most specifically one Limited Atonement. :thumbs: