Calvinism Denies Scripture: "All" = Some

[Amy.G]

<Baptist admitting mistake>

You're still wrong! You are evil and an infidel and I'm a sanctified believer!

</Baptist admitting mistake>

Oh yea??? Well, right back at ya! :laugh:

:1_grouphug:

 

[webdog]

I had said earlier that Romans 3:23 has to be all of the human race . The "all" there just refers to human beings . It's not an example of hyperbole .

Jesus was 100% human, too. The "all" cannot even refer to that. "All" is qualified by "have sinned"...past tense, and those who fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Rippon]

Picky , picky WD . Please let common sense prevail .

 

[Logos1560]

Matthew 3:5-7

Then went out to him of Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism


Would you say that the all's in verse 5 according to your understanding would have to include all the Pharisees and Sadducees? Verse 7 would seem to indicate that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in all Judaea did not come to his baptism. Does the context that includes verse 7 suggest that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in Judaea were baptized of him and all of them confessed their sins?

 

[HankD]

Matthew 3:5-7

Then went out to him of Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism


Would you say that the all's in verse 5 according to your understanding would have to include all the Pharisees and Sadducees? Verse 7 would seem to indicate that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in all Judaea did not come to his baptism. Does the context that includes verse 7 suggest that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in Judaea were baptized of him and all of them confessed their sins?

"All" in this context refers to "all" the regions defined and presumably their cities and sectors, not every individual within those "all" those regions.

What is the point?

We "all" know that "all" does not "all"ways mean "all" all the time and in "all" cases.

HankD

 

[TCGreek]

"All" in this context refers to "all" the regions defined and presumably their cities and sectors, not every individual within those "all" those regions.

What is the point?

We "all" know that "all" does not "all"ways mean "all" all the time and in "all" cases.

HankD

I thought we all would have gotten this use of all all this time, but this understanding of all is only for some and not all.

 

[Amy.G]

I thought we all would have gotten this use of all all this time, but this understanding of all is only for some and not all.

Well, all I have to say is, I don't understand what all this debate is about. It seems we are all in agreement on the various uses of the word all.

That is all.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

All Things Considered ...

... It's all right !

 

[webdog]

Picky , picky WD . Please let common sense prevail .

Yes, please, let's do so. All mean all, whole world means whole world, etc.

I don't think I was picky at all. If you are lumping all humans into your definition of "all", you must include Christ.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, all I have to say is, I don't understand what all this debate is about. It seems we are all in agreement on the various uses of the word all.

That is all.

:laugh: :laugh:

Nicely done. :thumbs:

 

[JustChristian]

The word 'all' is not always all inclusive, as we might think it is.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered
was the whole world counted and registered?

John 1: 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe

Did all beleive?

2Peter 3:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Are there people perishing, going to hell, does everyone repent and recieve eternal life?
All is not always all inclusive.

I interpret this to say that God does not want anyone to be lost. Most will be however because they reject Christ.

 

[donnA]

I interpret this to say that God does not want anyone to be lost. Most will be however because they reject Christ.

We aren't discussing the interpretation of the verse, but the word 'all'. The question on my verse is, is the word 'all' all inclusive? The answer is no, therefore all does not necessarily mean all inclusive.

 

[Bro. Williams]

It's called hyperbole . The beloved John used it at the end of his Gospel account .

Jesus also did many other things . If they were all written down , I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written . ( John 21:25 NLTse )

Mr. Spurgeon summarized my sentiments well in his quote that you graciously provided .

Another example of a calv using any reason not to believe the Bible as it stands.

 

[Rippon]

BW , your meow's are pitiful . As I said before there are good commentators who take different positions on the ( for want of a better expression ) "hyperbolic issue" . It's not a Calvinist vs. Arminian subject . I know you want to make it into one very badly though . If non-Calvinistic commentators do not share your point of view on the subject what will you do ? Will you call them closet Calvinists ? Everything is not C vs. A .

 

[Bismarck]

The word 'all' is not always all inclusive, as we might think it is.
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered
was the whole world counted and registered?

DonnA,

With respect, you are N-O-T reading this verse.

The verse does NOT say, "Augustus registered all the world".

The verse DOES say, "Augustus ORDERED all the world to be registered."

If the Emperor of China, who views his land as the "navel of the world", orders all the world to be taxed, are his courtiers going to nay-say him, and point out that Japan and Korea and the Mongol horsemen aren't part of the Celestial Empire??

Some day, we will find archaeological records of the decree, and it will read, "Augustus ordered all the world to be registered".

Scripture stands, as is. It does not need your "Eisegesis" = loose interpretation of Scripture guided by your preconceived notions.

John 1: 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe

Did all beleive?

2Peter 3:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Are there people perishing, going to hell, does everyone repent and recieve eternal life?
All is not always all inclusive.

YHWH-God wishes for ALL mankind to be saved.

Yet, many choose to betray their Maker, as ungrateful brat children who spurn the hands who fed them (and much more).

"...that all should come to repentance" is NOT the same thing as "that all HAVE come to repentance" or "that all WILL come to repentance".

Again, we are engaging in "eisegesis" = reading INTO Scripture, instead of just plain reading it.

 

[Bismarck]

Matthew 3:5-7

Then went out to him of Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.

And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism


Would you say that the all's in verse 5 according to your understanding would have to include all the Pharisees and Sadducees? Verse 7 would seem to indicate that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in all Judaea did not come to his baptism. Does the context that includes verse 7 suggest that all the Pharisees and Sadducees in Judaea were baptized of him and all of them confessed their sins?

What were they doing at his Baptism... according to you??


(How about this —*they go to his Baptism.... and John the Baptist accosts them for their superficiality, in going through the motions of being Baptized so as to not appear sinful to the masses, even though hypocritically they hadn't repented at all...

"ye are like unto whited sepulchres".)


Scripture stands as is. It does not need Calvinistic eisegesis.


PS: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5 confirms the great popularity of John the Baptist amongst the Jews. And cf., Matt 21:24-26:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, 'I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?' And they reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we shall say, 'From heaven'; he will say unto us, 'Why did ye not then believe him?' But if we shall say, 'Of men'; we fear the people; for all (pas, G3956) hold John as a prophet."​

Why did they fear the people? B/c all held John as a Prophet... b/c they had all been Baptized by that Prophet.

(The Priests looked doubly bad, b/c they too had been Baptized by the very man they now denied!)

Scripture stands as is. It does not need Calvinistic eisegesis.

 

[Bro. Williams]

BW , your meow's are pitiful . As I said before there are good commentators who take different positions on the ( for want of a better expression ) "hyperbolic issue" . It's not a Calvinist vs. Arminian subject . I know you want to make it into one very badly though . If non-Calvinistic commentators do not share your point of view on the subject what will you do ? Will you call them closet Calvinists ? Everything is not C vs. A .

It was you who mentioned arminian, I simply made it a calv issue. As is oft the case, when the Bible doesn't line up with their beloved Calvins' theology, by all means, change the Bible. It is more an issue of Bible belief.

Commentators are not God, we all make mistakes. Why, you wouldn't believe this, but I don't even take all that Doc Ruckman says as exactly right. Shocking isn't it?

BTW, it should be "meows" not "meow's".

 

[Rippon]

In case you're lost BW , you are referencing John 21:25 , aren't you ? I did not happen to check John Calvin's take on that verse . Again , it's not a Calvinistic issue . It is also not an Arminian issue . Take off your gloves and deal with reality . I'm not changing the Bible . Please don;'t say things so over the line . I wish you knew how to communicate without being so insulting and blasphemous . When you disagree state why -- that is give your reasons for your position . There is no need to say idle things that you will have to give an account for at the Judgment .

 

[npetreley]

BW , your meow's are pitiful . As I said before there are good commentators who take different positions on the ( for want of a better expression ) "hyperbolic issue" . It's not a Calvinist vs. Arminian subject . I know you want to make it into one very badly though . If non-Calvinistic commentators do not share your point of view on the subject what will you do ? Will you call them closet Calvinists ? Everything is not C vs. A .

By "everything is not C vs. A" do you mean all things without exception? Or are you using hyperbole?

:laugh:

 

[Bro. Williams]

In case you're lost BW , you are referencing John 21:25 , aren't you ? I did not happen to check John Calvin's take on that verse . Again , it's not a Calvinistic issue . It is also not an Arminian issue . Take off your gloves and deal with reality . I'm not changing the Bible . Please don;'t say things so over the line . I wish you knew how to communicate without being so insulting and blasphemous . When you disagree state why -- that is give your reasons for your position . There is no need to say idle things that you will have to give an account for at the Judgment .

I once was lost, but I am now washed in the blood. Going against you is not blasphemy though, don't think so highly of yourself.