Does God call and then give us a choice to respond to his call?

[ThePresbyteers]

---Then he says, TAKE YOUR PICK CALVINISTS!---

I picked that all men went to heaven.

 

[Hentenza]

I picked that all men went to heaven.

The gate is narrow.........

 

[Skala]

We translate into English the word "all" the Greek word "pas". Here's the definition of "pas"

1) individually - each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively - some of all types

So we see that #2 is a definition just as much as #1. The mistake the video makes (and many objectors to Election/Calvinism make) is ignoring definition #2 and thinking the Bible authors never used it. But we know that is not true at all. Here's just one example:

The love of money is the root of all (pas) evil.

Obviously the love of money is not the root of ALL evil. Adultery for example probably has nothing to do with money in most cases.

Here's what the Greek Lexicon says as an entry to this word:

... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go afterChrist? "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". Doesthe whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" areused in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is veryrarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words aregenerally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has notrestricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

The lexicon is quick to point out that the Bible authors used figures of speech many times in their writings. This is not uncommon even today, in English. Here's some examples I can think of:

A teacher says "Everyone, sit down".
Did she mean everyone? Everyone in the entire world, everyone that would ever be born into the human race? No, she means everyone in the smaller group of her class.

The entire city showed up for the football game.
Did the entire city show up? Or is this just a way to say "A bunch of people showed up"

"I use the word "all" all the time!"
No, I don't. I don't use "all" all the time, do I? In this very sentence I used other words, such as "words", "other", "sentence", "very", etc. So I don't use "all" all the time, do I? Even though I said I did!

Is Jesus the savior of the whole world? Yes, He is.
Is Jesus the savior of every single individual that will ever be born into the human race? No.

Both statements are true.

As for the video, the Teacher in the classroom analogy above works pretty well. When an author uses "pas" often he is referring his reader to the group he has already defined. You can see Paul define the two groups he is speaking about in the immediate context. Observe:

(red color is group #1, green color is group #2)

Rom 5:17-19
(17) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

It's pretty clear that even by using the word "all" (pas) Paul is in no way referring to every single individual in the human race. In the first case (red color) he's referring to all men in Adam. In the second case he's referring to all men in Christ (green color).

Though the men in Adam is the entire human race that's not the way Paul used the word. He used "all" to refer to the specific group of: men in Adam. It just happens to be the entire human race. Then he used the word 'all" to refer to the specific group of: men in Christ. And it happens to be less than the human race.

 

[Hentenza]

The apostle example is irrelevant because the Pharaoh entry in Romans 9 is specifically teaching that God hardened Pharaoh's heart precisely to display his power in him. The apostles hardening is a completely different context that has nothing to do with Paul's teaching in Romans 9.

Brother, it merely shows that God hardened hearts to effect His will. The apostles believed, hence, the result is different.

Well, he says "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

It sounds pretty clear to me that Peter is teaching they were destined to disobey the word, and the result of that is that they stumble. Look at the grammar. "They stumble because..." is a phrase that means the reason for their stumbling is about to be given. And that reason is "because they disobey the word". And then their disobedience is what they were "destined to do". They were destined to be disobedient, which causes them to stumble.

The stumble because they disobey the word. They not God. They are appointed to the "doom" (the result of disobeying the word which is tantamount to unbelief) not to unbelief. Because of sin, all disobedient unbelievers are destined for a "stumbling" which will lead to eternal condemnation (doom).

 

[ThePresbyteers]

The gate is narrow.........

The Elects squeezed their way through the gate and the goats were left behind.

All minus the goats.

 

[Hentenza]

We translate into English the word "all" the Greek word "pas". Here's the definition of "pas"

1) individually - each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively - some of all types

Where can I find this definition?

So we see that #2 is a definition just as much as #1. The mistake the video makes (and many objectors to Election/Calvinism make) is ignoring definition #2 and thinking the Bible authors never used it. But we know that is not true at all. Here's just one example:

The love of money is the root of all (pas) evil.

Obviously the love of money is not the root of ALL evil. Adultery for example probably has nothing to do with money in most cases.

Here is the verse.

1 Tim 6
10For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The love of money is not the root of all evil but the root of all sorts of evil. Sorry but I could not resist.

Here's what the Greek Lexicon says as an entry to this word:



The lexicon is quick to point out that the Bible authors used figures of speech many times in their writings. This is not uncommon even today, in English. Here's some examples I can think of:

A teacher says "Everyone, sit down".
Did she mean everyone? Everyone in the entire world, everyone that would ever be born into the human race? No, she means everyone in the smaller group of her class.

The entire city showed up for the football game.
Did the entire city show up? Or is this just a way to say "A bunch of people showed up"

"I use the word "all" all the time!"
No, I don't. I don't use "all" all the time, do I? In this very sentence I used other words, such as "words", "other", "sentence", "very", etc. So I don't use "all" all the time, do I? Even though I said I did!

Is Jesus the savior of the whole world? Yes, He is.
Is Jesus the savior of every single individual that will ever be born into the human race? No.

Both statements are true.

As for the video, the Teacher in the classroom analogy above works pretty well. When an author uses "pas" often he is referring his reader to the group he has already defined. You can see Paul define the two groups he is speaking about in the immediate context. Observe:

(red color is group #1, green color is group #2)

Rom 5:17-19
(17) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

It's pretty clear that even by using the word "all" (pas) Paul is in no way referring to every single individual in the human race. In the first case (red color) he's referring to all men in Adam. In the second case he's referring to all men in Christ (green color).

Though the men in Adam is the entire human race that's not the way Paul used the word. He used "all" to refer to the specific group of: men in Adam. It just happens to be the entire human race. Then he used the word 'all" to refer to the specific group of: men in Christ. And it happens to be less than the human race.

The meaning of pas is contextual. One should not go beyond the text to attempt to discern what the original author meant. For example, your assumptions above does not work with Luke 2:10 because the authors message is indeed for "all the peoples" which includes all and everyone.

 

[Hentenza]

The Elects squeezed their way through the gate and the goats were left behind.

All minus the goats.

Is God's gate. He can open it to whom He pleases.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Which came first , the chicken or the egg? God foresaw His vision and His vision wasn't based on what we did down the roads of our lives.

I'm not sure foresaw is the same as foreknowledge. He saw his vision because it WAS His vision. It unfold within itself. The blackhole gobbles everything in itself.

I read something interesting on "foreknowledge"... here is the link:

What does the Bible teach about election?

 

[Skala]

Where can I find this definition?

Just google "greek pas".

The love of money is not the root of all evil but the root of all sorts of evil. Sorry but I could not resist.

You'll notice that the word "sorts" doesn't exist in the original writings. Modern translations added it precisely for the reason I laid out in my post

The meaning of pas is contextual. One should not go beyond the text to attempt to discern what the original author meant. For example, your assumptions above does not work with Luke 2:10 because the authors message is indeed for "all the peoples" which includes all and everyone.

Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

I must disagree with you brother. Obviously the Pharisees and Herod for example did not find great joy in the birth of Christ. Hence, yet again, "all" doesn't' really mean every single individual, does it?

 

[CoconutPrincess]

(red color is group #1, green color is group #2)

Rom 5:17-19
(17) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

It's pretty clear that even by using the word "all" (pas) Paul is in no way referring to every single individual in the human race. In the first case (red color) he's referring to all men in Adam. In the second case he's referring to all men in Christ (green color).

Good point, it's a contrast.

What about new Christians reading at first glance... they know nothing of Greek and the things you are telling me. When they read these scriptures, they do not see two classes or a contrast, they see it as the same (as many mature Christians do as well). Why is it so "complicated"? A person should be able to open the Bible and know what he is reading, right?

 

[CoconutPrincess]

My friend told me today that we have free will. I would love to know how I can come back to this email with truth and I'm somewhat new to this so I don't have all the answers right away. Here is my friends response to the things I shared with her about election that I gathered from this forum and online. Take a look:

I would say that we are unable to choose salvation unless the Holy Spirit softens our heart to understanding the gospel and orchestrates it so we hear the gospel in the first place. We are unable to take the first step to God, to enter the Holy of Holies, to make a decision to seek out salvation.

God takes the first step toward us. He sent his Son. He loved us first. While dead in sin, we are unable to love God nor do we even think we should.

However, God gave man free will. Even though he took the first step, even though for many, he shows his love and shows his love and they hear the gospel over and over and over again, he will not force them to be saved. They still have the choice to reject the gift of salvation.

God knows who will accept it and who will reject. God is all knowing. To say otherwise denies the very character of God. We are bound by time as humans but God is not. God can look at the entire breadth of history in one glance and from the respect, absolutely knows who, even though he pursues them, will reject him anyway.

Just like we as parents know how our kids will react to things, God knows everything about us, every thought, every cell, everything. How could he not know who will accept and will not.

But, we cannot go out and find salvation on our own. It is the Holy Spirit who draws us to God and who wills us to draw near to him. Otherwise, we are perfectly content to go about our way in death none the wiser.

This is a really huge topic and one that is hard to debate via email. However, whenever a really troubling bit of theology comes up, I am always drawn back to the character of God to help me understand.

Election and predestination has been hotly debated in theological circles for hundreds of years and I have a deep respect for collegues on both sides of the fence. It is good to debate and question.

I asked her to give me scripture where God has given us free will. I also mentioned that if it is our choice, then it means our will is stronger than God's will. I also said if God is calling, we can't resist His call because we cannot resist His will. But I want to know if there is more I can tell her.

 

[Skala]

I read something interesting on "foreknowledge"... here is the link:

What does the Bible teach about election?

CP:

You'll notice that Arminians will tell you that God foresaw faith and then elected on that basis.

But consider the following:

1) Not a single bible verse says such a thing
2) Arminians appeal to verses that say "Elect according to God's foreknowledge" (1 Peter) and "Whom He did foreknow them also did He predestinate.." (Romans 8)

However, Arminians read something in these verses that is not there. The verses do not say that what God foreknew was faith. It says He foreknew the people themselves. Grammatically, the object of God's knowledge in Romans 8:29 is people, not their actions. It says "Whom He did foreknow".

The verse says nothing about God foreknowing faith.

Further we see in Acts that Christ was delivered up "according to the foreknowledge and determinate council of God". So God's foreknowledge is equated with God's "determinate council". Yet again we see in 1 Peter that Christ was "foreknown" by God, but obviously simply we don't say that God simply "knew about" Christ, but that God foreordained Christ. (Thus some translations render the word foreordained).

So we see that God's foreknowledge is causative. It is not some passive gathering of information on God's part (indeed, God cannot learn anything new).

However this is precisely what Arminianism states. That God learned who would believe, because he looked into the future, and made a decision to choose those people.

Yet to summarize:

1) The Bible never says that
2) Foreknowledge is not a passive gathering of information, but causative It is a verb. It is active movement on God's part (Whom He did foreknow, he predestined)
3) Since faith is a gift from God in the first place the only thing God could foreknow about people is faithlessness, not faith. He must give that for it to be so.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

CP:

You'll notice that Arminians will tell you that God foresaw faith and then elected on that basis.

But consider the following:

1) Not a single bible verse says such a thing
2) Arminians appeal to verses that say "Elect according to God's foreknowledge" (1 Peter) and "Whom He did foreknow them also did He predestinate.." (Romans 8)

However, Arminians read something in these verses that is not there. The verses do not say that what God foreknew was faith. It says He foreknew the people themselves. Grammatically, the object of God's knowledge in Romans 8:29 is people, not their actions. It says "Whom He did foreknow".

The verse says nothing about God foreknowing faith.

Further we see in Acts that Christ was delivered up "according to the foreknowledge and determinate council of God". So God's foreknowledge is equated with God's "determinate council". Yet again we see in 1 Peter that Christ was "foreknown" by God, but obviously simply we don't say that God simply "knew about" Christ, but that God foreordained Christ. (Thus some translations render the word foreordained).

So we see that God's foreknowledge is causative. It is not some passive gathering of information on God's part (indeed, God cannot learn anything new).

However this is precisely what Arminianism states. That God learned who would believe, because he looked into the future, and made a decision to choose those people.

Yet to summarize:

1) The Bible never says that
2) Foreknowledge is not a passive gathering of information, but causative It is a verb. It is active movement on God's part (Whom He did foreknow, he predestined)
3) Since faith is a gift from God in the first place the only thing God could foreknow about people is faithlessness, not faith. He must give that for it to be so.

This link is to John MacArhthur who is Calvinist He explains what foreknowledge is (not being what Arminians say it is). Now I'll go and read your reply lol

 

[faceofbear]

This link is to John MacArhthur who is Calvinist He explains what foreknowledge is (not being what Arminians say it is). Now I'll go and read your reply lol

Eh, I'd say it's fairly debatable WHAT MacArthur REALLY is, despite what he SAYS he is.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Eh, I'd say it's fairly debatable WHAT MacArthur REALLY is, despite what he SAYS he is.

Hmmm... well he does say he's calvinist and he teaches what calvin teaches as far as election goes.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

I just thought of something.

If ANY man thirst, let him come unto me.

Is is possible, that this verse doesn't mean if any of the elect, because there is not "if" about it. The elect WILL thirst. Perhaps its saying exactly what its saying, but the point is, only the elect will thirst and so, any of them can come unto him. A dead person will not thirst. Just a thought

 

[Skala]

I would say that we are unable to choose salvation unless the Holy Spirit softens our heart to understanding the gospel and orchestrates it so we hear the gospel in the first place. We are unable to take the first step to God, to enter the Holy of Holies, to make a decision to seek out salvation.

She is right, on this point!

God takes the first step toward us. He sent his Son. He loved us first. While dead in sin, we are unable to love God nor do we even think we should.

Yet again she is right.

However, God gave man free will. Even though he took the first step, even though for many, he shows his love and shows his love and they hear the gospel over and over and over again, he will not force them to be saved. They still have the choice to reject the gift of salvation.

Here is where she errs. First, no where does the Bible speak of fallen men having free wills in the libertarian sense. Yes, we are able to choose what we desire. But we never desire holiness because we are slaves to sin (not free, but slaves). So the only choices we can make are sinful choices. Paul says whatever is not done in faith is sin. This means that the unregenerate person who walks a lady across the street, while doing a humanly good deed, is still in a state of sin.

Secondly she said "God will not force anyone to be saved". This shows a misunderstanding on her part. The will is not passed by in salvation. God doesn't make someone do something against their will - he changes their will. So the person who was previously unwilling to be saved is now willing. They are willing to embrace Christ, and thus, do. When someone believes in Christ, it's because they want to believe in Him, because their will is now changed (by God's amazing grace)

God knows who will accept it and who will reject. God is all knowing. To say otherwise denies the very character of God. We are bound by time as humans but God is not. God can look at the entire breadth of history in one glance and from the respect, absolutely knows who, even though he pursues them, will reject him anyway.

This is classic "foreseeing faith" theology here. But point out to her that the Bible never says such a thing. It never attributes God's election to human faith, but rather "To the kind intention of his will" (eph) and "to the praise of the glory of his grace" and "so that God's purpose in election might stand" (Rom 9)

And point out to her that since faith is a gift, the only thing God could foresee about humans is rebellion, not saving faith. They don't have that unless God gives it to him so impossible that he can foresee it and then choose them!

Just like we as parents know how our kids will react to things, God knows everything about us, every thought, every cell, everything. How could he not know who will accept and will not.

The Bible already tells us what God sees in humans; Psa 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

But, we cannot go out and find salvation on our own. It is the Holy Spirit who draws us to God and who wills us to draw near to him. Otherwise, we are perfectly content to go about our way in death none the wiser.

Without heart-changing grace we will never embrace God. It wouldn't do God any good to just "allow us to choose him", because we would still have the problem of that old stony heart. He must do more than that.

 

[Skala]

I just thought of something.

If ANY man thirst, let him come unto me.

Is is possible, that this verse doesn't mean if any of the elect, because there is not "if" about it. The elect WILL thirst. Perhaps its saying exactly what its saying, but the point is, only the elect will thirst and so, any of them can come unto him. A dead person will not thirst. Just a thought

I think your conclusion is accurate. You have to remember that in a practical sense, in regular conversation, it makes more sense to say "if anyone is willing, come", than it does to go into a 2 hour explanation about theology

Sinners need the gospel. They need to be told that they come to Jesus. They need to be told that he is there waiting for them if they ever desire to go. They don't need doctrine about election and predestination.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

I think your conclusion is accurate. You have to remember that in a practical sense, in regular conversation, it makes more sense to say "if anyone is willing, come", than it does to go into a 2 hour explanation about theology

Sinners need the gospel. They need to be told that they come to Jesus. They need to be told that he is there waiting for them if they ever desire to go. They don't need doctrine about election and predestination.

Yes exactly, but I know my friend will throw that scripture at me and I want to be prepared!

Thanks for helping me answer her. I'm sending an email back to her in a few minutes.

 

[Hentenza]

Just google "greek pas".

Mmmm.......Here are several definitions from well known and exhaustive dictionaries.

1. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon

ΠΑ͂Σ, πᾶσα, πᾶν: gen. παντός, πάσης, παντός: gen. pl. masc. and neut. πάντων, fem. πασῶν, Ion. πᾱσέων, Ep. πᾱσάων [σᾱ]: dat. pl. masc. and neut. πᾶσι, Ep. πάντεσσι:—Lat. omnis, all, when used of many; when of one only, all, the whole:
I. in pl. all, πάντες τεθεοὶ πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι Il.; τῶν Σαμίων πάντες Thuc.; ἅμα πάντες, πάντες ἅμα all together, Il., etc.
2. with a Sup., πάντες ἄριστοι all the noblest, Lat. optimus quisque, Hom.
II. all, the whole, πᾶσα ἀλήθεια all the truth, Il.; χαλκέη πᾶσα all of bronze, Hdt.; ἦν ἡ μάχη ἐν χερσὶ πᾶσα all hand to hand, Thuc.; ἡ πᾶσα βλάβη nothing but mischief, Soph.
III. = ἕκαστος, every, Hom., etc.; πᾶς χώρει let everyone go, Ar.:—also, πᾶς ἀνήρ Soph., etc.; πᾶς τις every single one, Hdt., etc.; πᾶς ὅστις. . Soph.; πᾶν ὅσον Aesch., etc.
B. When the Art. is used, it is generally put after πᾶς, πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν all his force, Hdt.; πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν Thuc.
II. πᾶς is put between the Art. and Subst., to denote totality, ὁ πᾶς ἀριθμός Aesch.; τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος Thuc.
III. as a Subst., τὸ πᾶν the whole, Aesch.; τὰ πάντα the whole, Id.
C. With Numerals it marks an exact number, ἐννέα πάντες quite nine, full nine, no less, Od.; δέκα πάντα τάλαντα Il.; but, κτήνεα τὰ θύσιμα πάντα τρισχίλια ἔθυσε 3000 of all kinds, Hdt.
II. with the Article, in all, οἱ πάντες εἷς καὶ ἐννενήκοντα Id.
D. Special Usages:—in dat. pl. masc. πᾶσι, with or in the judgment of all, Il., Soph.
2. πᾶσι as neut., in all things, altogether, Soph.
II. πάντα γίγνεσθαι to become all things, i.e. assume every shape, Od.; εἰς πᾶν ἀφικνεῖσθαι to venture everything, Xen.
2. πάντα εἶναί τινι to be everything to one, Hdt., Thuc., etc.
3. πάντα as Adv. for πάντως, in all points, entirely, wholly, Od., Soph., etc.:—but, τὰ πάντα in every way, by all means, altogether, Hdt.
III. neut. sing. τὸ πᾶν the whole, ones all, περὶ τοῦ παντὸς δρόμον θέειν Id.; τοῦ π. ἐλλείπειν Aesch.:—τὸ πᾶν as Adv., on the whole, altogether, Soph., etc.; with a negat. at all, Aesch.
2. πᾶν everything, anything, πᾶν μᾶλλον ἢ στρατιήν anything rather than an army, Hdt.; πᾶν ποιῶν by any means whatever, Plat.; so, πάντα ποιῶν Dem.
3. ἐπὶ πᾶν on the whole, in general, generally, Plat.
4. παντὸς μᾶλλον above all, absolutely, necessarily, Lat. ita ut nihil supra, Id.:—in answers, π. γε μᾶλλον yes, absolutely so, Id.
5. with Preps., ἐς πᾶν κακοῦ ἀπικέσθαι to all extremity of ill, Hdt.; so, εἰς πᾶν ἀφικέσθαι Xen.; ἐς τὸ πᾶν altogether, Aesch.:—ἐνπαντὶ ἀθυμίας εἶναι in all extremity of despair, Thuc.:—περὶ παντὸς ποιεῖσθαι to esteem above all, Lat. maximi facere, Xen.:—διὰ παντὸς (sc. χρόνο&#965, or as one word διάπαντος, for ever, continually, Soph., Thuc., etc.: but also, altogether, Thuc., Plat.


Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (611). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


2. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains.

4246 πᾶς (pas), πᾶσα (pasa), πᾶν (pan) gen. masc. sing. παντός (pantos): adj.; ≡ DBLHebr 3972; Str 3956; TDNT 5.886—1. LN 59.23 all, every, each, whole (Mt 8:32; 24:34; 26:56; Lk 4:5; 1Co 3:21; Gal 5:14; Jn 8:2 v.r.; Mk 16: Shorter v.r.); 2. LN 59.24 any, one of a totality (Mt 18:19; 19:3); 3. LN 78.44 total, complete (Ac 4:29; 1Ti 4:9; Tit 2:15); 4. LN 63.2 whole, with the definite article, with the focus on totality (Mt 18:32; Ro 9:17; Mk 16:15 v.r.); 5. LN 58.28 every kind of (Mt 4:23; 1Co 6:18) note: see LN index for a fuller treatment of the lexical units.

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

3. NAS Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionary. This one includes all usages in the NASB.

3956. πᾶς pas; a prim. word; all, every:—all(731), all the things(7), all … things(1), all kinds(1), all men(14), all people(4), all respects(3), all things(126), all*(1), always*(3), any(16), any at all(1), anyone(3), anything(3), anything*(1), continually*(6), entire(4), every(128), every form(1), every kind(9), every respect(1), every way(2), everyone(71), everyone’s(1), everyone*(1), everything(45), forever*(1), full(2), great(2), no*(15), none*(1), nothing(1), nothing*(1), one(4), perfectly(1), quite(1), whatever(3), whatever*(1), whoever(7), whole(18).

Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

4. Louw-Nida

πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν (gen m , n παντό&#962
a all: 59.23
b any: 59.24
c total: 78.44
d whole: 63.2
e every kind of: 58.28
πᾶς: units
διὰ παντός
a regularly: 67.15
b always: 67.86
προ͂ παντο͂ς τοῦ αἰῶνος
since all time 67.133
(εἰ&#962 (παντὰ&#962 τοὺς αἰῶνας (τῶν αἰώνω&#957
forever 67.95
σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρω
do one’s best 68.64


Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (190). New York: United Bible societies.

5. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. this one is rather long but very informative.

Linguistic Data on πᾶς and ἅπας in the NT: 1. πᾶς as Adjective: a. With Article; b. Without Article; 2. πᾶς as Noun: a. With Article; b. Without Article; 3. ἅπας. B. Material Aspects: 1. God as Creator and Ruler of All Things according to the OT: 2. πᾶς in the LXX; 3. πᾶς in the World of Greek and Hellenistic Thought: 4. πᾶς in the NT.

A pronominal adj. and pronoun, “whole,” “all,” “each,” current from the time of Hom. *παντ- was formed from ku̬ā-nt “increasing,” “strengthening,” and is related to κύω, κύριος and the Doric πέπαμαι, “to possess.” ἅπας is a subsidiary form strengthened by ἅ- (*sm). It may be compared with σύμπας, found in the LXX but not in the NT.1


A. Linguistic Data on πᾶς and ἅπας in the NT.

1. πᾶς as Adjective.


πᾶς as adjective can have very different meanings acc. to its use with article or without article, predicatively or attributively (cf. words like αὐτός, μόνος, ἄκρος, μέσος, ἔσχατο&#962. The use of the art. normally depends on whether or not the simple noun would be with or without art. As regards the art. and noun one has to distinguish between an individual or demonstrative and a generic or indefinite function. In particular one may speak of a summative, implicative and distributive signification of πᾶς as the term embraces either a totality or sum as an independent entity (summative), an inclusion of all individual parts or representatives of a concept (implicative), or extension to relatively independent particulars (distributive). If the reference is to the attainment of the supreme height or breadth of a concept, we have an elative (or amplificative) significance.
a. With Article.

Predicative Position. With the demonstr, art., implicative significance. Sing. “all,” “whole”: πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία, Mt. 3:5; πᾶσα ἡ ἀλήθεια, Mk. 5:33; after, and thereby emphasised: ἡ κρίσις πᾶσα, “in its whole scope,” Jn. 5:22. In such cases ὅλος might also he used, → 174 f. The art. may be omitted with geographical names, πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, Mt. 2:3; πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (OT), Ac. 2:36; ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς (OT), 17:26. Plur. “all”: πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί, Mt. 1:17; πάντα τὰ π̔ήματα ταῦτα, Lk. 1:65. Also with part. as noun: πάντα τὰ γενόμενα, Mt. 18:31 and with a substantive prepositional expression: πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, Mt. 5:15; πάντες οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, Lk. 5:9; with pronoun, but without art.: πάντες ἡμεῖς, Ac. 2:32; πάντες οὗτοι, Ac. 2:7; ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τούτοις, Col. 3:14. With generic art., distributive significance, with part. “whoever,” “all possible” (cf. πᾶς ὅστι&#962, e.g., πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος, Mt. 5:22: πᾶν τὸ πωλούμενον, 1 C. 10:25; πάντες οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, Mt. 4:24; and in prepositional phrases: πάντες οἱ εἰς μακράν, Ac. 2:39. πᾶς is here a strengthening of the generic art. With elative (amplificative) significance, “all”: πᾶσα ἡ γνῶσις, πίστις, 1 C. 13:2; ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν, 2 C. 1:4; εὐχαριστῷ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, “for all your remembrance (of me),” Phil. 1:3; πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν, 1 Pt. 5:7.
Attributive Position. By this close connection with the noun, the content of the whole is emphasised in its totality, so that the word has summatire significance: “whole,” “as a whole,” “generally,” e.g., τὸν πάντα χρόνον, Ac. 20:18; ὁ πᾶς νόμος, Gl.5:14; οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί, Gl. 1:2.

b. Without Article.

Elative Significance: “full,” “supreme,” “total,” “pure,” in the NT only with abstract nouns: πᾶσα ἐξουσία, Mt. 28:18; μετὰ παρρησίας πάσης, Ac. 4:29; ἐν πάσῃ ἀσφαλείᾳ, probably “with full favour on the part of men as our goal,” 2 C. 4:2; ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες (strong emphasis), 2 C. 9:8; also 12:12; Eph. 4:2; ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει καὶ δεήσει, “with all perseverance in prayer,” Eph. 6:18: Phil. 1:20 etc. In profane Gk. this sense is found also with material objects, e.g., πᾶς χαλκός, πᾶν ἀργύριον, “pure.”
Distributive Significance: “each.” Generic: “each one” in a group (though not with such stress on the individual as ἕκαστος, “each apart”); in the plur. “all”: πᾶσα φάραγξ, πᾶν ὄρος (on earth), Lk. 3:5; πᾶσα σάρξ, (OT) “each being,” Lk. 3:6: εἰς πάντα τόπον τῆς περιχώρου, Lk. 4:37; πᾶς ἄνθρωπος (in the world). Jn. 1:9; 2:10; πάντες ἄνθρωποι, Ac. 22:15; πάντες ἄγγελοι, Hb. 1:6; πᾶσα ἀρχὴ καὶ πᾶσα ἐξουσια (there is), 1 C. 15:24; πᾶσα γραφή, 2 Tm. 3:16. Also indefinite: “each” “any,” “all possible,” πᾶν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπόν, Mt. 3:10; Lk. 3:9; πᾶσα νόσος καὶ πᾶσα μαλακία (which might occur), Mt. 4:23; πᾶν ἁμάρτημα, 1 C. 6:18; πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, Tt. 1:16; 3:1; πᾶς ἄνεμος τῆς διδασκαλίας, Eph. 4:14. Rarely with part.: παντὸς ἀκούοντος, “each who hears,” Mt. 13:19; παντὶ ὀφείλοντι, Lk. 11:4. In some instances everything general is set aside and the individual is intended: “whoever,” “whatever,” ἐὰν συμφωνήσωσιν … περὶ παντὸς πράγματος, Mt. 18:19; κατας πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, “for whatever reason,” Mt. 19:3; μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, 1 Jn. 4:1 etc. As in secular Gk. πᾶς in privative phrases means “any, e.g., ἄνευ παντὸς [ὑπ]ολόγου, “without any deduction,” P. Leid. P, 32,11 so in the NT, under Heb. influence (לאֹ־כֹ&#1500, one finds an even more strongly restrictive πᾶς along with οὐ or μή, usually with the sense of “none at all”: οὐ πᾶν ῥῆμα, “nothing at all,” Lk. 1:37: οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινόν, “never anything,” Ac. 10:14; πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς … μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, Eph. 4:29. By analogy a similar πᾶς occurs in Mk. 4:13 predicatively with art.: πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε; “how will you understand any parables?” (here one might also think in terms of πάντω&#962. Cf. in all these instances the class. ὀστισοῦν, not found in the NT.


2. πᾶς as Noun.


a. With Article.

Implicative Significance. The art. is usually demonstrative, and only with the plur.: οἱ πάντες, “they all.” Mk. 14:64; R. 11:32; 1 C. 9:22; 10:17; 2C. 5:14; Phil. 2:21 (the context shows who are meant); τὰ πάντα, “all things,” 2 C.4:15; Phil. 3:8; Col. 3:8 (but “they all” in 1 C. 12:19, where several neutral subst. are comprised). Sometimes the art. is half generic: ζωὴ καὶ πνοὴ καὶ τὰ πάντα, “and all such things,” Ac. 17:25: σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται, “he will with him (the Son) give us all these things” (i.e., the things associated herewith), R. 8:32. “All these things” (in the world) is formally used for “all things,” “all creatures,” “the universe,” R. 11:36; 1 C. 8:6; 15:28; Gl.3:22; Eph. 1:10; 3:9; 4:10; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:16f., 20; 1 Tm. 6:13; Hb. 1:3; 2:10: Rev. 4:11.
Summative Significance. In explanatory apposition to a noun οἱ πάντες etc. are used half adverbially for “in all,” “all together,” esp. with numbers:13 ἦσαν οἱ πάντες ἄνδρες ὡσεὶ δώδεκα, “they were in all about twelve men,” Ac. 19:7; ἤμεθα αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί 276, “we were in all 276 souls,” Ac. 27:37 (such phrases would be open to misunderstanding without the art.); but also without numbers: μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες, “until we all attain,” Eph. 4:13. Neutr. plur. in a similar function or as acc. of relation: ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται … ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται (note the order), “to those without all things are done in parables,” Mk. 4:11; αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, “grow up to him in all things,” Eph. 4:15 (πάντα without art. means “in every connection,” → infra).

b. Without Article.

Distributive Significance, generic or indefinite acc. to context. Sing. “each”: πᾶς, “each man,” Lk. 16:16; πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν, “each,” 14:33; after prep. → lines 25–30. Plur. “all”; πάντες, “all men,” Mt. 10:22; “all present,” 14:20; 15:37; “all Jews,” 21:26 etc. πάντα, “all things,” the extent and content being decided by the context: πάντα μοι παρεδοθη, Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22; πάντα ἀποδώσω σοι, Mt. 18:26; πάντα ἕτοιμα, Mt. 22:4; πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Jn. 1:3; ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόγ, “God who rules over all (sc. all creatures),” R. 9:5; πάντα ὑμῶν, “all that you do,” 1 C. 16:14 etc.
Adverbial Phrases. A partitive gen. πάντων is used adverbially in superlatives: “of all,” cf. ὕστερον or ἔσχατον πάντων, “last of all.” Mt. 22:27; Mk. 12:22; πρῶτον πάντων, “first of all,” 1 Tm. 2:1; it is independent of the gender of the main noun: ποία ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων, “the first commandment of all,” Mk. 12:28 (πλεῖον πάντων in Lk. 21:3 might similarly mean “the most of all,” though “more than all” is more likely in view of Mk. 12:43). πάντα is also used adverbially as an acc. of relation: “in every respect,” Ac. 20:35; 1 C. 9:25 etc. With prep.: διὰ παντὸς (sc. χρόνο&#965, “always,” Mt. 18:10 etc.; εἰς πάντα, “in every respect,” 2 C. 2:9; ἐν παντί, “in everything,” 1 C. 1:5 etc.; ἐν πᾶσιν “in all parts,” Eph. 1:23; “in all things,” 1 Tm. 3:11 etc.; ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, Phil. 4:12 (repetition for the sake of emphasis); κατὰ πάντα, “in every respect,” Ac. 17:22 etc.; περὶ πάντων, “in all things,” 3 Jn. 2; πρὸ πάντων, “above all,” Jm. 5:12; 1 Pt. 4:8. The adv. πάντως in general means “in all circumstances.” This explains the various special senses, e.g., “certainly”: πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν, Ac. 28:4; “generally”: πάντως οἱ πόρνοι, “fornicators generally,” 1 C. 5:10.



. Vol. 5: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (886–889). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

I hope these help.

You'll notice that the word "sorts" doesn't exist in the original writings. Modern translations added it precisely for the reason I laid out in my post

I did notice but I like having fun with that one. I preached a sermon on it not too long ago.

Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

I must disagree with you brother. Obviously the Pharisees and Herod for example did not find great joy in the birth of Christ. Hence, yet again, "all" doesn't' really mean every single individual, does it?

In this case it actually does. Pas is used here as an adjective modifying "the people. There is no additional modifiers. You are getting outside of the text to attempt to explain it which is never a good thing. Later on the scriptures tells us about Herod and the Pharisees and their reasons for rejecting the Messiah but this is separate to the text of Luke 2:10.