Question Concerning "all"

[Defcon]

As I have read through most of John Owen's book Death of Death in the Death of Christ (almost done )I have come upon his explanation of how all very seldom if ever means "each and every" but "all sorts". I know that we can infer from other scripture that when Christ paid for all the sins of the elect; it was each and every one (i.e. the ransom for our sins, being reconciled with God, etc.). Is there other differences concerning "all" in terms of sin as opposed to "all" in terms of mankind ? If not, I'm still quite convinced that Christ died for all the sin of some men (the elect). Just curious, as I see this as a quick rebuttal for any who oppose our view. Thanks.

 

[Jon_]

As I have read through most of John Owen's book Death of Death in the Death of Christ (almost done )I have come upon his explanation of how all very seldom if ever means "each and every" but "all sorts". I know that we can infer from other scripture that when Christ paid for all the sins of the elect; it was each and every one (i.e. the ransom for our sins, being reconciled with God, etc.). Is there other differences concerning "all" in terms of sin as opposed to "all" in terms of mankind ? If not, I'm still quite convinced that Christ died for all the sin of some men (the elect). Just curious, as I see this as a quick rebuttal for any who oppose our view. Thanks.

The best examples are found in those verses that supposedly teach unlimited atonement, but in nowise do at all. I'll go over three that are frequently misunderstood in this fashion.

(1 Timothy 4:10 KJV) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
​

Arminians think they really have us with this verse because the language is "Savior of all men especially those who believe." In fact, they have it all wrong. Paul is inferring from a general to a particular here. He is making a logical argument, but most people don't see this in the context. His argument is that Christ is the Savior of all (kinds) of men. This is true, as Peter says, "for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). But of course, Peter uses the indicative mood, which renders this sentence merely a statement of fact that all men must be saved by Christ because none other can or will save.

From this we see that God is the Savior of all men in the general sense that none other can save. Paul then infers to the elect especially because they are them that are saved by the blood of Christ. Obviously, this does not mean that all men are saved by Christ, especially those saved by Christ. This is redundant. Here we see Paul's inference from the general to the particular, which is precisely how logical arguments follow. His arguments is something of an enthymeme. He leaves out the premise that we must believe in Christ to be saved, but this is obviously implied from the context (vv. 1, 6, 16).

Moreover, even the Arminian will agree that one must have faith in order to be saved. He cannot maintain that all are saved by Christ because not all will be saved. And besides, the Scriptures say that Christ "shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21); and his people are "all that the Father giveth [him]" (John 6:37) because "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14).

(1 Timothy 2:4 KJV) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
​

In this verse, the word "men" does not mean all men individually, but all men generically (that is, all mankind). The same with this verse:

(1 John 2:2 KJV) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
​

Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world means that Christ alone is the propitiation for the sins of the world. It does not mean that Christ has appeased the Father's wrath toward all men individually. Of course it cannot mean this because then all men would be saved and there would be no hell. Christ talked extensively about hell—more than any of his apostles. It is clear that this verse means that Christ alone is the propiation of sins, meaning that he is the Savior of all mankind in the general sense we saw above.

Also, we know that God is not desirous that all men be saved because God does all that he desires (Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6, &c.). It follows that since some are not saved, God does not desire they be saved; otherwise, they would be. This simple fact alone refutes the idea of a real or even hypothetical unlimited atonement.

The term "all" always means "all" in the New Testament. Where we must be careful is what subject we attach that "all" to. This is where the Arminians fail and ascribe irrational and impossible interpretations to the text. It is against these impious interpretations and falsifications of the Bible that we fight.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ghs1994]

Another example of trying to make scripture fit the "elect" theology. Why not take scripture at face value instead of trying to make it fit somewhere it doesn't belong? I'm not an Arminian or Calvinist, but it seems to me that's a little one sided.

 

[Jon_]

Another example of trying to make scripture fit the "elect" theology. Why not take scripture at face value instead of trying to make it fit somewhere it doesn't belong? I'm not an Arminian or Calvinist, but it seems to me that's a little one sided.

Were you going to offer anything more than this irrational, emotional outburst? What I have presented is the teaching of Scripture clearly laid out. For you to accuse me of trying to make "elect" theology (what is that, anyway?) fit the Scripture is completely baseless. You haven't provided the least bit of support for that position. I am taking Scripture at face value. I value it highly enough to dig into the langauge used by the authors of the New Testament to discern what they really meant. Your problem is that you "take it at face value," which is what you want it to say, and not what it really says.

Anyway, unless you have something constructive to offer, kindly keep your irrational opinion to yourself.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Reformationist]

Another example of trying to make scripture fit the "elect" theology. Why not take scripture at face value instead of trying to make it fit somewhere it doesn't belong? I'm not an Arminian or Calvinist, but it seems to me that's a little one sided.

"Face value" is a relative term and is a completely unreliable in matters of biblical interpretation. When reading the Word of the Lord it is essential to understand what is said, i.e., "face value," in the context that it is given.

For instance, is it enough for me to say, "I am going to buy a movie ticket for all of you." Focusing on "face value" can you please tell me who the "all of you" is in that statement? Of course not. To properly understand what I have said, it is essential that you understand the context, i.e., to whom I am speaking. Additionally, audience is only one of the factors which can affect the meaning of something's "face value."

God bless

 

[ghs1994]

Were you going to offer anything more than this irrational, emotional outburst? What I have presented is the teaching of Scripture clearly laid out. For you to accuse me of trying to make "elect" theology (what is that, anyway?) fit the Scripture is completely baseless. You haven't provided the least bit of support for that position. I am taking Scripture at face value. I value it highly enough to dig into the langauge used by the authors of the New Testament to discern what they really meant. Your problem is that you "take it at face value," which is what you want it to say, and not what it really says.

Anyway, unless you have something constructive to offer, kindly keep your irrational opinion to yourself.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

It's not an emotional outburst at all man. I'm really not mad at all, just amazed out how some will "interpret" scripture to fit a certain theology. What makes Calvin's theology supreme?

 

[Jon_]

It's not an emotional outburst at all man. I'm really not mad at all, just amazed out how some will "interpret" scripture to fit a certain theology. What makes Calvin's theology supreme?

What I find amazing is that you somehow think I am distorting the Scriptures. Let me ask you this. Do you believe the Scriptures are the infallible, inerrant word of God? I must then ask, is it not contradictory to say that Christ died for all men, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men, but that some men will go to hell? If it is not contradictory, then I would like to know how it is not contradictory. If it is contradictory, then I would like to know how you can possibly affirm that the Bible is inerrant.

You are faced with a clear dilemma. Either Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but the Father's wrath toward all is not really appeased (thus contradiction), or Christ died only for the elect and the Father's wrath toward them really is appeased. On the left, you have liberal theology, Neo-orthodoxy, and outright heresy. To the right, you have Calvinism and orthodox Christianity. What will you believe? The Bible, or the impious interpretations of men?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ghs1994]

"Face value" is a relative term and is a completely unreliable in matters of biblical interpretation. When reading the Word of the Lord it is essential to understand what is said, i.e., "face value," in the context that it is given.

For instance, is it enough for me to say, "I am going to buy a movie ticket for all of you." Focusing on "face value" can you please tell me who the "all of you" is in that statement? Of course not. To properly understand what I have said, it is essential that you understand the context, i.e., to whom I am speaking. Additionally, audience is only one of the factors which can affect the meaning of something's "face value."

God bless

Why is face value of scripture unreliable? Cannot a born again Christian understand these scriptures without interpretation? I understand the whole context thing you're referring to. I'm sorry if you thought I meant only verses. I don't believe I said that, but if I led you to believe that, I do apologize.

 

[ghs1994]

What I find amazing is that you somehow think I am distorting the Scriptures. Let me ask you this. Do you believe the Scriptures are the infallible, inerrant word of God? I must then ask, is it not contradictory to say that Christ died for all men, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men, but that some men will go to hell? If it is not contradictory, then I would like to know how it is not contradictory. If it is contradictory, then I would like to know how you can possibly affirm that the Bible is inerrant.

You are faced with a clear dilemma. Either Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but the Father's wrath toward all is not really appeased (thus contradiction), or Christ died only for the elect and the Father's wrath toward them really is appeased. On the left, you have liberal theology, Neo-orthodoxy, and outright heresy. To the right, you have Calvinism and orthodox Christianity. What will you believe? The Bible, or the impious interpretations of men?



Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

The bottom line in what I believe is that Christ is who I put my faith in for salvation, not me or anything about me or any ritual or anything of that sort. Whether God has elected me from the beginning or not is irrelevant to me. The fact that I'm saved and Christ works in my heart is all I need to know and care about. My concern is running the race set out for me. I'll leave all that intellectual stuff to those who can handle it. I'll just keep studying and being led by the Spirit thru the Word.

Sorry if I ticked anyone off. It was not my intention.

 

[Reformationist]

Why is face value of scripture unreliable? Cannot a born again Christian understand these scriptures without interpretation? I understand the whole context thing you're referring to. I'm sorry if you thought I meant only verses. I don't believe I said that, but if I led you to believe that, I do apologize.

I see. Maybe you could define what you mean by "face value" then?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Jon_]

The bottom line in what I believe is that Christ is who I put my faith in for salvation . . .

Without an intellectual understanding of the savings propositions concerning Christ's sacrifice, how would you be saved? Whether you realize it or not, Christianity is an intellectual religion. It is encompassed in the many propositions concerning Christ and his redemptive work in the Holy Scriptures.

not me or anything about me or any ritual or anything of that sort. Whether God has elected me from the beginning or not is irrelevant to me.

It shouldn't be, though. You say that you want to just keep studying and being led by the Spirit through the Word. Well, election is one of the doctrines of the Word; and a very basic one at that. It behooves you to properly understand the doctrine of election if you want to be obedient and grow in your knowledge of God.

The fact that I'm saved and Christ works in my heart is all I need to know and care about.

That's silly, my friend. The proposition "I am saved by Christ" is in fact a series of propositions concerning, election, calling, regeneration, justification, santification, glorification, etc. To say "I am saved by Christ" is to say nothing meaningful unless you know the underlying significance of that statement. This is why man would will cry "Lord! Lord!" will be sent from Christ's presence in the last days. He never knew them, and they never knew him.

My concern is running the race set out for me. I'll leave all that intellectual stuff to those who can handle it. I'll just keep studying and being led by the Spirit thru the Word.

Study and guidance by the Spirit are intellectual pursuits, and are at the heart of Christianity. How can you run the race if you don't know the path? How can you be obedient, if you don't know what is required of you? Sound biblical knowledge is at the center of Christianity, my friend. You cannot simply throw off doctrine and theology and say "I'm going to live by faith" because you won't have the least idea what it means to live by faith without studying God's Word.

The doctrine of election is not something invented by men and taught as a supplementary tradition to the word. Election is clearly in the Bible and we are commanded to understand it, regardless of whether or not we can. We are called to be obedient in our understanding. It is disobedient to ignore what the Bible says on such an important matter.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Reformationist]

As always, great post Jon.

I, too, cringe at the modern day resistance to all things rational. I was once speaking to my wife about an issue in the Gospel (prior to our being married) and a girl came into our presence, heard what we were talking about, and stated, quite summarily, "I believe in God but that's it."

My response was, obviously, "Huh? What does that mean?"

She couldn't explain her own statement. Quite sad actually.

God bless

 

[seekingpurity047]

The bottom line in what I believe is that Christ is who I put my faith in for salvation, not me or anything about me or any ritual or anything of that sort. Whether God has elected me from the beginning or not is irrelevant to me. The fact that I'm saved and Christ works in my heart is all I need to know and care about. My concern is running the race set out for me. I'll leave all that intellectual stuff to those who can handle it. I'll just keep studying and being led by the Spirit thru the Word.

Sorry if I ticked anyone off. It was not my intention.

I think it's important to learn these things, such as doctrines, etc, becuase it tells us about the character of God. What He's like, etc. Wouldn't it be better to actually know God fully (well... that's impossible right now, but knowing God "more" i guess is better) than to remain ignorant of who God is and waht He is like? It's extremely important to understand who He is.

This is why I support the intellectual approach to knowing God. We should desire to care about doctrine, ie. Calvinism, etc., to understand God.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[ghs1994]

I see. Maybe you could define what you mean by "face value" then?

Thanks,
God bless

Anytime anyone adds something to scripture taken out of context to try and prove their theology not taking into consideration the rest of the text.

 

[ghs1994]

I think it's important to learn these things, such as doctrines, etc, becuase it tells us about the character of God. What He's like, etc. Wouldn't it be better to actually know God fully (well... that's impossible right now, but knowing God "more" i guess is better) than to remain ignorant of who God is and waht He is like? It's extremely important to understand who He is.

This is why I support the intellectual approach to knowing God. We should desire to care about doctrine, ie. Calvinism, etc., to understand God.

To the glory of God,

Randy

I do believe Paul said something along the lines of the Jews look for a sign and the Greeks seek knowledge. I however, seek the understanding in the Word thru the Spirit's enabling. We can know all kinds of things and yet have no relationship with Him at all. Knowing is not believing.

 

[jonas3]

I do believe Paul said something along the lines of the Jews look for a sign and the Greeks seek knowledge. I however, seek the understanding in the Word thru the Spirit's enabling. We can know all kinds of things and yet have no relationship with Him at all. Knowing is not believing.

On the contrary, to believe something is to have a knowledge about it. One can NOT believe what one does NOT know. How can you believe the gospel, if you do not know the gospel? Faith professes a belief. Faith KNOWS something. Faith believes that Jesus Christ met all of the conditions for the salvation of His people through His atoning blood and His imputed righteousness alone. Those who do not believe this gospel are LOST (i.e. unregenerate (i.e. do NOT have the Spirit)) (2Cor 4:3). Those who do NOT know how God is just to justify the ungodly are lost. Those who do NOT know how Christ died according to the Scriptures are lost. Those who do NOT know what the gospel is are lost. Upon regeneration, God gives His people a KNOWLEDGE of the gospel. God causes His people to repent and BELIEVE the gospel. God's regenerate elect believe the gospel and know the true and living God, Jesus Christ.


“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” – Jn 17:3

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” – Ro 6:17

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. – 2Cor 4:6

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” – 1Jn 5:20.


-jonas

 

[Jon_]

On the contrary, to believe something is to have a knowledge about it. One can NOT believe what one does NOT know.

Actually, it's the other way around. One cannot know what one does not believe. To know something is for it to be true. One cannot know something if it is false. I cannot know it raining outside because it is false that it is raining outside. Belief is necessary for knowledge, but knowledge is not necessary for belief.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Reformationist]

Anytime anyone adds something to scripture taken out of context to try and prove their theology not taking into consideration the rest of the text.

And this is what you accused a Calvinist of? Are you sure you were talking to the right person? It is context, both immediate and overall, which Calvinists often appeal to to show non-Calvinists that their understanding is inaccurate.

You made a very telling statement earlier when you referred to "the elect theology." You'd have to dispense with Scripture to avoid acknowledging that the Bible teaches election. What you believe about election can be different than what a Calvinst would believe but to refer to it in a way that implies that you disregard election altogether shows that the "face value" of which you speak is sadly unbiblical.

Are you aware that election is taught in the Gospel? I'm not asking what you believe the Bible teaches about election. I'm merely asking if you acknowledge that it is taught.

God bless

 

[ghs1994]

On the contrary, to believe something is to have a knowledge about it. One can NOT believe what one does NOT know. How can you believe the gospel, if you do not know the gospel? Faith professes a belief. Faith KNOWS something. Faith believes that Jesus Christ met all of the conditions for the salvation of His people through His atoning blood and His imputed righteousness alone. Those who do not believe this gospel are LOST (i.e. unregenerate (i.e. do NOT have the Spirit)) (2Cor 4:3). Those who do NOT know how God is just to justify the ungodly are lost. Those who do NOT know how Christ died according to the Scriptures are lost. Those who do NOT know what the gospel is are lost. Upon regeneration, God gives His people a KNOWLEDGE of the gospel. God causes His people to repent and BELIEVE the gospel. God's regenerate elect believe the gospel and know the true and living God, Jesus Christ.


“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” – Jn 17:3

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” – Ro 6:17

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. – 2Cor 4:6

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” – 1Jn 5:20.


-jonas

Can't have knowledge without belief, atleast with scripture. You know that.

 

[ghs1994]

Actually, it's the other way around. One cannot know what one does not believe. To know something is for it to be true. One cannot know something if it is false. I cannot know it raining outside because it is false that it is raining outside. Belief is necessary for knowledge, but knowledge is not necessary for belief.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Sorry didn't see you posted that.