Replies

Calvinists have changed "world" to mean "elect" in no fewer than twenty scriptures. They have changed "whosoever" and "all" into "elect" at least sixteen times each. They have changed "every man" into "elect" six times and "everyone" into "elect" three times. In John 12:32 Christ says He would draw "all men" to himself, But Calvinists claim that the word "all" in that context refers only to the elect. As if Christ could have said "some men" if he had meant "some men" or that Christ could not have said "the elect" if he meant "the elect." Christ said "all men." Instead of dodging it, the Calvinist should just deal with it. If it contradicts their theology, they need to adjust their theology, not the scriptures.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

I assume then you believe seeing that all men without exception are called by the father and the word says that all men that have heard come that all men without exception are saved ?

Do not blame the Calvinists for the greek words

ALL

pas {pas}

TDNT - 5:886,795 including all the forms of declension

Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

Marlowe all does not always mean all.

If you said to your wife " all the men were at the meeting" She would understand that all was not all without exception, it was all the men that were expected to be there.

In the case of scripture the term all was understood by the Jews that heard it. it meant that all types of men ,not only the Jews that thought they had an exclusive relationship with God..but the gentile nations would be included in salvation.

The alls and whosoevers were a strong message to the Jews

I do not understand the need for men to have control over God..

Calvinists have changed "world" to mean "elect" in no fewer than twenty scriptures...Christ said "all men." Instead of dodging it, the Calvinist should just deal with it. If it contradicts their theology, they need to adjust their theology, not the Scriptures.

One source of the dispute on this thread is that there are many verses in the Bible that seem to mean, on their surfaces, that Christ came to save all men and that there are also many verses in the Bible that seem to mean, on their surfaces, that not all will be saved. Every participant in, and lurker on, this thread that has read the Bible should be able to agree on these two points and the logical conclusion that on the surface of the texts there is contradiction.

The dispute, then, is on how to deal with this apparent contradiction. Theological liberals say either that the Bible isn't God's word (at best, it's a human document that "contains" God's word) or that interpretation is mystical and/or subjective; in either case, surface contradictions don't matter. Hopefully, all reading this thread can agree that both liberal approaches are unworthy of respect.

Theological conservatives, by contrast, believe the Bible is God's word and, thus, like him isn't self-contradictory. So they want to resolve the apparent conflict in a logical way. Given the language of the texts, this requires going below the surface meaning of the words.

Calvinists address the subsurface meaning of the text by addition; they include for consideration yet another group of verses in the Bible, those that describe election. As God doesn't contradict himself, they say, when he says he comes to save "all the world," for example, he must mean "his elect from all parts of the world." Although this approach complicates matters it is internally coherent. And increased complication doesn't mean error; God's creation is complicated, so an accurate description thereof will itself included complicated elements.

Arminians, by contrast, try to deal with the apparent contradiction of God sending his Son to save all men and the Bible's account that not all will be saved by subtraction and simplification. They overlook or gloss over the many Sovereign election verses in the Bible. They do the same to those verses that emphasize God's omnipotence. Thus God may have elected some people but surely only a special few. And God may be all-powerful, but he chooses to give up his power any place it might infringe on the human right of choice.

This interpretive approach does simplify reality. But it also distorts it. It teaches a diminished view of God (He doesn't accomplish all he wills and much of what he does accomplish is contingent on his creation) and an elevated view of man. Indeed, in the Arminian view, Human Choice is the ultimate Sovereign. It outranks even the Creator....

Calvinism may be complicated and a bit paradoxical. But I'll take complication and paradox over simplicity that puts man at the center of the church any day.