A New Division of "All"

[jabcat]

We've had these "all" discussions before, i.e., does it always literally mean all, is it determined by context, etc.

I ran across these assertions on another discussion tonight.  After SteveW posted his Thomas Talbott post, I went out and explored a little, and came across a discussion of his book.  This is one guy's take on it, in 3 different posts.

Anyone ever seen these "explanations" before?

1)  The author thinks the "all" is talking about "all" humans in both cases. But, it's talking about "all" those who have either Christ or Adam as their federal head.

It's talking about the imputation of Adams sin vs. Christ's righteousness.

Adam represented "all men" and Christ, "those who believe." Not all men "believe."

2) Adam represented "his people" and Christ "his people." His people are "those who believe." Since not all believe, not all are "his people."

I think I've phrased that in a way even an Arminain could accept.

3)  Keep in mind that I barely scratched the surface of an argument for how Romans 5 should be understood. It's safe to say, though, that Romans 5 makes it obvious that the "all" in Adam is not the "all" in Christ. Christ is the head of "those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness."

[jabcat]

I realized after posting that this ties in pretty closely with gkm's thread "All Saved"...I may incorporate this one into his thread after a little discussion in this one.

[WhiteWings]

I realized after posting that this ties in pretty closely with gkm's thread "All Saved"...I may incorporate this one into his thread after a little discussion in this one.

All all thread are a bit messy. Perhaps we can make have a focused thread/compiled answer that can be used as a standard...?


In a way that person is correct. Jesus only saves who believe in Him. If not Christian Universalism would become Unitarianism.

1 Tim. 4:10 that Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.

Even I know what especially means so I won't bother explaining the meaning to people with English as their first language.

Believers
All humanity = believers + unbelievers

The counter argument will be:

After death comes judgement. (click for more)

Context is good thing but I think nothing should be added or removed from the context

But ignoring "especially believers" is removing context. It can't be denied all words in 1 Tim 4:10 are very close context.
While I'm sure "After death comes judgement" is part of the context" it seems to be of lesser importance.
Just imagine a sermon of Jesus about sandals. "Everyone wearing sandals will be saved!". Thanks for listening people it's time for me to move on to the next town. See you all in heaven!
While the people are discussing His sermon with big smiles on their faces Jesus says to the Twelve "but only people with black sandals" (after death come judgement)

For me such things are lies. It's like a secondhand car salesman that tells you all sorts of good things about a car be "forgets" to tell you there is no engine in the car....

[WhiteWings]

Whoops, I forgot the best all verses from my signature.


1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
==> Men. Not just believers.

John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
==> The world. Not just believers.

Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...
==> The ungodly are declared rightous. What hapens with rightous people?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: WW, I really like your current tree gif.... :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: WW, I really like your current tree gif.... :thumbsup:

Also if you know what the words mean?
:laughing7: