Does "All" mean "all", all the time?

[NinjaWizards777]

One of the arguments of the typical calvinist against the arminian is that "all" in the bible does not actually mean "all people" and that is figurative.

Figurative and symbolic language exists, so is this a problem to such verses as 1 john 2:2 when it says "whole world" or john 3:16 "for God so loved the WORLD".

my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.

But I just wanna hear your guys' take on it

[NinjaWizards777]

oh, cmon!  :sigh:

[Zeek]

Gen 6:17  And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 6:18  But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

[NinjaWizards777]

elaboration, please?

Dont tell me you people dont wanna talk about this...

[WhiteWings]

6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.

So the all in this example is not a real all.

[Zeek]

6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.

So the all in this example is not a real all.

:thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as
1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.

Few verses similar to yours:

Romans 5:15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more  have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

AFAIK all denominations agree the first Adam caused 100% mankind to fall into sin/death. (excluding Jesus)
Then the next part of the verse states that even more people receive the grace of  God (through Jesus)
For me that means noone is excluded. But to be honest I find it weird that more than 100% (the sinful people) recieve grace...

Romans 5:18-19
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,  => Adams sin brought death upon all.
so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. => Jesus sacrifice brought forgiveness for all.

I think "so" is the keyword here.
For me the verse says something like:
If Adam can, and did, ruin our eternal life then it is obvious that Jesus can, and did, undo the damage done by Adam.

Romans 5:20  But where sin abounded (pleonazo), grace did much more abound (huperperisseuo)

I think it's safe to say all denominations agree sin abounded worldwide thoughout all generations. It is found in all parts of the world in all times. But grace abounded even more. So grace reaches all places sin has reached.

[martincisneros]

There's a difference between dialogue or monologue in a narrative and something like Paul's epistles that are supposed to be doctrinal.  If all in a doctrinal passage didn't literally mean all, then the ultra liberals would have an argument about it not literally being the Blood of Christ that saves, but that that would merely refer to the sacrifice.  If all in a doctrinal passage didn't literally mean all, then the ultra liberals would have an argument about it not literally being an account that we'll have to give on judgment day, and particularly not for every word, thought, and action as is the Apostle's clear emphasis. 

Granted that few things precross are void of the possibility of having some or much symbolism attached to them.  But Jesus said that He would no longer speak with us in figurative language, but would tell us plainly about His Father, and I've always understood St. Paul to be the written representation of that in the New Testament.  I personally never look for very much of the figurative after the Cross, and in areas of the prophets that are clearly describing post crucifixion realities, because of John 16:25 indicating that that would be a very poor hermeneutic:

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."

I stand on this verse every single day for clarity about my heavenly Father's will.  John 10:5,27 is also never very far away from my thanksgiving either for pinpoint accuracy in my relationship with Him.  But this thing about being able to count on Him to tell you exactly the way it is after the resurrection is so vital and dynamic to me.  We're not children of darkness, but children of the day having these things clearly revealed to us by His Spirit.

[WhiteWings]

Another similar verse.

Luke 19:10  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.

Again I think there is a common agreement that all was lost due to Adam.
Now ask these questions:
a] Did Jesus find all that was lost?
b] Did Jesus save all that was lost?

If the answer to a and/or b is no then that has the following implications:
Father overestimated the Son.
The Son failed. -> Missed the mark -> Sinned.

[WhiteWings]

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."

How do I/we know that hour has already come?
Maybe the hour starts when Jesus returns.

Or does hour mean something in the (very) nearby future?
And "a time is coming" of something in the more distant future?

[martincisneros]

How do I/we know that hour has already come?
Maybe the hour starts when Jesus returns.

Simple on how we know that that time is now.  Reread the whole or entire chapter.  He was addressing the time when He would no longer be with us, when the Spirit of Truth would come and lead us into all truth, and when we would pray in His Name to the Father rather than asking Him for anything:

23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
25These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
26At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
27For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
29His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.


And then of course, St. Paul vouches for that with all of his comments about what was previously mysterious is now openly revealed; what eye hasn't seen, what ear hasn't heard, God has revealed to us by His Spirit of those things that He has for those that love Him, et. al., i.e. Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.

[IceDash]

Gen 6:17  And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 6:18  But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

God is talking to Noah and his family...not "all" of us.

[legoman]

Romans 5:15  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more  have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

AFAIK all denominations agree the first Adam caused 100% mankind to fall into sin/death. (excluding Jesus)
Then the next part of the verse states that even more people receive the grace of  God (through Jesus)
For me that means noone is excluded. But to be honest I find it weird that more than 100% (the sinful people) recieve grace...

Hi WW,

This verse is not necessarily talking about more than 100% of the people.  Its talking about the "quantity" of God's grace.  The "quantity" of God's grace will always exceed the "quantity" of man's trespass.  Basically meaning there is no sin too big for God's grace.

Romans 5:20 below echos this.

Romans 5:20  But where sin abounded (pleonazo), grace did much more abound (huperperisseuo)

I think it's safe to say all denominations agree sin abounded worldwide thoughout all generations. It is found in all parts of the world in all times. But grace abounded even more. So grace reaches all places sin has reached.

Cheers,
Legoman

[legoman]

6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.

So the all in this example is not a real all.

:thumbsup:

But it is an "all" with an exception clause. If I say:

All the beer is warm!

Do I really mean all the beer that ever existed is warm?  No, there is an implied exception, what I really mean is something like this:

All the beer in this room is warm!

Even in the case of The Flood, when the bible says "all flesh was destroyed", even if we discount Noah's family, there is still an implied exception of "all flesh that was currently alive at the time of the flood was destroyed".  ie. I believe Adam & Eve were already dead before the Flood hit, so they weren't destroyed by the flood.

Even so, all still means all.  We may have to apply an "implied exception" where it logically makes sense: ie. the flood didn't destroy the flesh of those who had already died.

Legoman

[legoman]

Another similar verse.

Luke 19:10  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.

Again I think there is a common agreement that all was lost due to Adam.
Now ask these questions:
a] Did Jesus find all that was lost?
b] Did Jesus save all that was lost?

If the answer to a and/or b is no then that has the following implications:
Father overestimated the Son.
The Son failed. -> Missed the mark -> Sinned.

This is a good example of where there really is no "implied exception" built into the meaning of "all".  Is there any logical reason why "the lost" does not include everyone?  No.  In fact, the bible tells us that everyone inclusively is lost.  Is there any logical reason why Jesus couldn't save all the lost (everyone)?  Well only if you believe hell is eternal...

Also this verse doesn't even use the word "all".

Legoman

[legoman]

One of the arguments of the typical calvinist against the arminian is that "all" in the bible does not actually mean "all people" and that is figurative.

Figurative and symbolic language exists, so is this a problem to such verses as 1 john 2:2 when it says "whole world" or john 3:16 "for God so loved the WORLD".

my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.

But I just wanna hear your guys' take on it

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


For reference this is what Calvinists believe.  They correctly believe God is sovereign over all.  They incorrectly believe there is a hell/place of eternal torment.  This leads to the logically (somewhat) consistent conclusion that God decrees certain individuals go to hell.  However there is also the logically inconsistent side effect that this greatly diminishes God's love... but I won't get into that.

So for the above 2 verses, to the Calvinist, world cannot mean every individual.  Since God is sovereign, if "world" really meant "every individual", then God would actually save every individual.  And we can't have that because it contradicts the existence of a place of eternal torment.  (Never mind it actually confirms God's amazing love...).

So the way the Calvinist interprets "world" in the above verses is in relation to "scope".  ie. God saves people from "throughout" the world.  All types and classes and categories of people are saved, from all different nations.  But NOT ALL people.

Never mind that this turns God into a horrible monster who decrees people be tormented forever - we (the Calvinists) were lucky enough to be one of the "chosen ones".  At least thats what the Calvinist believes.  Good luck getting them to admit that's what their theology states though...

Peace.

[legoman]

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Looking at these verses at face value... is there any reason to force an "implied exception" into the meaning of "world"?

Personally I don't think so.  But if you believe in eternal torment then there would be a reason.  Therefore the belief in "eternal" (aionios) hell/lake of fire/torment really needs to be addressed first.  Once that is understood, then the above verses make sense.

The problem is of course is no one (well not many - again another implied exception) believes that "eternal" is not in the bible.

[WhiteWings]

This is a good example of where there really is no "implied exception" built into the meaning of "all".  Is there any logical reason why "the lost" does not include everyone?  No.  In fact, the bible tells us that everyone inclusively is lost.  Is there any logical reason why Jesus couldn't save all the lost (everyone)?  Well only if you believe hell is eternal...

Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.

b] When it logically can't mean all.
Example -> The already dead people can't drown.
Problem -> This gives room to slip in all kind of exclusions that are illogical.
Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.

So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.

[martincisneros]

Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.
Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.
So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.

LOL!  Yup!!  Unfortunately, it's man's nature, and even apparently the nature of Christians, to find inherent limits to the Written Word of God's promises and to get so obscenely ridiculous with His judgments that the judgments are pushed beyond anything we'd ever attribute to Adolf Hitler if he'd had the time and omnipotence at his disposal to have gotten all he wanted accomplished.  When each of us are at our wits end with the current state of affairs and want to say that absolutely no real Christian would believe some of these things of their heavenly Father, then the Holy Spirit highlights for us that sweet relative (or the annoying one) that's scared to death for the souls of the world, regardless of how much Bible teaching is virtually happening on every block and on virtually every form of media outlet.  A lot of people don't even believe that these people can be reached while they're alive, as though Christ left His ministries so bankrupt of power to reach [any of] 'em.  Christians are unfortunately absolutely shocked by the conversion of quite a few people that are famous.  They're absolutely flabbergasted as though Christ honestly had nothing to offer them and couldn't be persuasive with each heart about anything He'd want.

[legoman]

Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?

As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied.  If we believed there were really an eternal hell, then logically we would come to the same conclusions as the mainstream church.  One part of the bible talks about eternal hell.  Therefore wherever it talks about "all" being saved, "all" seeing salvation, etc., it can't really mean all. 

The error is not in applying the limitation (because it is "too far away" or whatever).
The error is in misunderstanding the "limitation".  Gain a clear understanding of what "hell" is, and then the limitation is removed.

Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.

Only abusive if the limitation has nothing to do with the original verse or if the limitation is misunderstood.

b] When it logically can't mean all.
Example -> The already dead people can't drown.

Valid.

Problem -> This gives room to slip in all kind of exclusions that are illogical.

Key word there: illogical.  I find it interesting when debating with other Christians, as soon as you mention "logically it has to be like this", then they will say but that is just your manmade reasoning, we must use faith and not trust in logic.  Bah.  To a certain extent, that is true.  But when we go so far as to justify God tormenting people forever, we have gone way past throwing logic out the window.  Our faith has now lost all meaning and we are just drinking the koolaid.  God gave us minds and logic so we would use them.  Critical thinking isn't just for the athiests.  :winkgrin:

Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.

Yes, that is clear abuse when the text says no such thing.  Again we have a misunderstanding.  People assume:
elect = chosen = saved
non-elect = not-chosen = burning in hell.

Therefore "all" must mean only the elect.

But the initial premise was wrong.  Really its like this:
elect = chosen for honor = saved first
non-elect = called but not chosen = saved later

Therefore "all" can be inclusive of elect & non-elect.

Its interesting break this all down logically, as it really helps to clarify "all" these verses  :bigGrin:

So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.

Yes, if it is mangled.

I see it like this.  ALL first means ALL (ie. all drowned in the flood).  Then apply any limitations from the scripture (ie. not including Noah's family).  Then apply any limitations that are implied (ie. not including the people who had already died before the flood).  That should be our "scientific method" for determining what "all" really means in a particular verse.

Legoman

[WhiteWings]

Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?

As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied. 

I think there is  a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.

[legoman]

Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?

As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied. 

I think there is  a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.

Yes but it doesn't work for your hypothetical example because the example is a bit inconsistent and contradictory itself.  God said he would split the sea, but then didn't do it because He took a nap - implying God made a mistake, God is not omniscient, God forgot to do something etc...

For another "hypothetical" example, look at how the mainstream teaches about ET.  We have a few verses that speak of eternal fire, eternal smoke rising from the lake of fire, etc.  These are then used to limit every occurence of "all" in reference to salvation of all.  Now I would say that is correct use of a limiter, if the limiter is indeed true (which it is not, but just assume it was).  In this case proximity has no bearing on the validity of the limiter.

Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth,And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.

This is how we should all understand the bible.  Read every verse.  Memorize every verse.  Understand every verse, and then understand every interaction with every other verse.

In actual practice that is very difficult (impossible maybe?) to do.

That is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other.  We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other.  If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere.  Now this works for verses that support each other.

For verses that limit another verse, it must be clear that the "limiter" is indeed referencing the "limitee". ie. If there is an eternal hell, then we must limit all verses that say "all" will be saved.

I don't think applying the limiter is the problem.  The problem is misunderstanding what the limiter really is.

Legoman

[WhiteWings]

Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?

As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied. 

I think there is  a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.

Yes but it doesn't work for your hypothetical example because the example is a bit inconsistent and contradictory itself.  God said he would split the sea, but then didn't do it because He took a nap - implying God made a mistake, God is not omniscient, God forgot to do something etc...

That's not what I'm trying to say. It was Gods intention to reveal the limiter centuries later. He didn't forget anything.
Just as He reveals the limiter to all centuries later.
If God works that way it would just be as logical to me as commanding many times the Shabbat should be held on the 7th day and then 2000 year later add but the 4th of 5th day is fine with me too.

That is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other.  We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other.  If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere.  Now this works for verses that support each other.

I fully agree with that.
And I also see you write 'support' and not 'alter' or 'limit'
A verse found 3 books later can only confirm earlier verses. Not alter them by adding a limiter.
By lack of better words the people that only heard the first verse lived their life in a lie.

[legoman]

That's not what I'm trying to say. It was Gods intention to reveal the limiter centuries later. He didn't forget anything.
Just as He reveals the limiter to all centuries later.
If God works that way it would just be as logical to me as commanding many times the Shabbat should be held on the 7th day and then 2000 year later add but the 4th of 5th day is fine with me too.

That is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other.  We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other.  If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere.  Now this works for verses that support each other.

I fully agree with that.
And I also see you write 'support' and not 'alter' or 'limit'
A verse found 3 books later can only confirm earlier verses. Not alter them by adding a limiter.
By lack of better words the people that only heard the first verse lived their life in a lie.

Yeah I get what you are saying.

That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:

"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"

And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like!  HA!"

Kind of an extreme example but for any of these examples (yours or mine) they have to be extreme to really make the point of a false limiter.

I agree it would be bad form for God to change his words many generations after they were said.  But with the bible we have many assurances that God is good and that He won't change:
- God is Love
- God doesn't lie
- God doesn't change his mind
- God doesn't change his purpose

I can look up the scriptures for those if anyone wants.

So any type of limiter that is revealed within the bible, must be consistent with those above assurances.

An eternal Hell is a REALLY HUGE LIMITER on all of these assurances that God gives us.  That should be our first clue that something is wrong with the concept of eternal torment.

Not sure if we are getting off topic here.  Anyway WW, I see your point about the limiter must be in the same chapter (close proximity) to the original verse.  In that sense, hell being taught as a limiter is in big violation of this and this results in much contradiction if you believe in eternal hell.

Peace,
Legoman

[martincisneros]

This is how we should all understand the bible.  Read every verse.  Memorize every verse.  Understand every verse, and then understand every interaction with every other verse.

It's not hard.  A child can do it.  Just means building your schedule around the Word of God rather than trying to fit the Word of God into your busy schedule.  The problem is not that of needing more time, but of making better use of the time that we have.  It's never the supremely busy who have no time.  Each five minute increment of our day should have it's own quota of usefulness.  Time should never be wasted.  It should be redeemed.  Nothing redeems it more than time spent in God's Written Word.  Many men of God throughout the centuries have been able to account for each 5 minute increment of their lives.  John Wesley and F.B. Meyer are examples of consecrated time and intellect devoted to God's Word who did that very thing with their schedules.  In our calling and election that is a calling and election to excellence, according to 2Peter chapter 1, nothing else will do!