So, you agree with scripture. Jesus draws all men to Himself, not just some of the all. (That doesn't even make sense now does it?)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God's View of Unbelievers
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
- Status
So, you agree with scripture. Jesus draws all men to Himself, not just some of the all. (That doesn't even make sense now does it?)
Again, the term "all" is determined by context. Saying "all kinds" is not necessarily if context does it for us.
So, you agree with scripture. Jesus draws all men to Himself, not just some of the all. (That doesn't even make sense now does it?)
Jesus draws both Jews and Gentiles. All, not just the Jews. No, he doesn't draw every single person to himself.
That is not the plain reading of the text. Can you show me from the Greek that the word "all" makes a reference to "all kinds"?
Surely our Lord could have said all "kinds" instead of "all".
Did Jesus draw all Jews or some of them?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you could try John 6:44. But actually Jesus will turn away no one who comes to Him in repentance and faith (v37). The sad fact is that men and women will not come to Christ through their own wickedness and hardness of heart (5:40).I agree. I understand context.
But where does it say Jesus excludes anyone?
Winman and others seem to have a view of people desperately trying to come to Christ and the Father turning them away. This is a wretched caricature of the truth.
Clearly He did not draw all of them because it is evident that not all were saved (John 8:21).
I would encourage everyone to read the link on the O.P. I find it hard to believe that some people have. Along with Al Martin, Walt Chantry is probably the most respected living Reformed Baptist in America. I think he might know what Calvinism is a little better than Winman or Van.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
psalms109:31
Active Member
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. 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 Ghost 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 Ghost 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."
Spurgeon
The ones that were not saved had resisted the Holy Spirit as Stephen said. If the Holy Spirit was not drawing them there would be nothing to resist, correct?
Jesus said He came to save that which is lost. Who isn't lost?
Does the word "all" mean every single person every single time? No it does not. The word "all" in both languages is determined by context. You know that. I already gave you and example. Here's another "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 were not taxed. I was not taxed. Obviously, the "all" was limited by the context. It was limited by "world" and more specifically the Roman world as Augustus would not have had jurisdiction over anyone else.
Jesus didn't have to say "kinds." You must prove from the context that it is teaching every person that ever lived. The context doesn't support that and it would contradict what Jesus said in John 6. What happens is people read John 6 and say that Jesus couldn't mean what he said and run to John 12. You said something about "plain reading," well I do that with John 6. When I get to John 12 which is 6 chapters later and a totally different context, I don't make jumps like that.
If all were drawn to Christ, then all would have come to Christ.
Spurgeon wasn't dealing with this text at the time. Again, "all" doesn't mean "all people that have ever lived" all the time. You know this.
I give up. Go read your catechisms, er catacombs...I mean cannons. :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough. I don't care if you have a different interpretation if you feel the Bible teaches that. But don't dismiss mine so easily. We all know that "all" doesn't always mean all. (hint hint...I just used all to not mean all people because not "all" people really know that.
Fair enough. I don't care if you have a different interpretation if you feel the Bible teaches that. But don't dismiss mine so easily. We all know that "all" doesn't always mean all. (hint hint...I just used all to not mean all people because not "all" people really know that.
I do appreciate your attitude. :wavey:
Amy, you know good and well that I don't do that. You are usually very kind. I only quoted the cannon of dort to show you the Calvinist position because you said that what I had said wasn't Calvinism. I was not using it as any type of proof as it would be none. The Bible is the authority.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I honestly thought it was funny. :flower:
I was just trying to be humorous.
Forgive? :1_grouphug:
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Fair enough. I don't care if you have a different interpretation if you feel the Bible teaches that. But don't dismiss mine so easily. We all know that "all" doesn't always mean all. (hint hint...I just used all to not mean all people because not "all" people really know that.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
oh, sorry...... Maybe you should have put a :laugh: to clue...ok, so you did. Silly me.
I think we're all silly. That's why we can laugh at ourselves. :tongue3:
(at least I laugh at myself a lot.....maybe that's because I do a lot of dumb things :laugh
psalms109:31
Active Member
Spurgeon was dealing with all and you know they say the same about the text Spurgeon was dealing with. When God is talking about all He is talking about all He knows, when men are talking about all he is talking about all he know. I will not play with the word of God as He is calling His own or ever. Who I am I to question God only in my ignorance.
That is very interesting. Definitely worth studying.
- Status