PL,
I think understand the Calvinists meaning behind why someone could interpret the verses that say "whole world" or "All men" to mean just the elect. But none of the scriptures in context seem to support this idea.
First, but not necessarily most important. Just because I am speaking to a limited group of people does not mean that my reference to "all" people only means the ones I am speaking to. It can but it does not have to.
Secondly, in the context of the Bible, since God did create the "whole world" and "All men", then these terms can very easily mean exactly what it says they mean. Remember this is scripture, devinely inspired down to every letter. Or if in Hebrew, every "jot and tittle". In other words it IS the Word of God.And if God inspired the write to write "ALL MEN" then I am sure there was a purpose for that.
Thirdly, In the context of the scriptures that use the terms "All men" that Calvinists say refers to the elect, why would in the same paragraph or sometimes the same sentence the writer use the word "us" to refer to Christians and then say "all" or "All men" to only refer to "us" or the "elect".
(I Jn 2:2 & II Cor 5:14,15,19 & I Tim 2:6 & 4:10 & Titus 2:11 & II Pet 3:9)
Fourthly, Sometimes it just seems wrong to limit the phrase "all men" to just the elect.
I Tim 2:1 uses "all men" as as to whom we should pray for. Does that mean we only pray for the elect? no of course not.
And mostly importantly, in Pauls letters to Timothy. Of course they were only to Timothy. In I Tim 2:5,6 it uses the word all. Referring to all people
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
and 4:10
10For 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.
This verse even compares those that believe with the rest of men. I suppose if this verse had ended with "SPECIFICALLY of those that believe." then it would mean what you say. But it does not say that. If there is an idiomatic phrase here from the greek that causes this meaning, then please show me and explain your source. That greek word translates as especially, most of all, chiefly, above all.
In Pauls style of writing if he wanted to explain that by "all men" he meant only believers, he would not have used the greek word malistah.
He would have used no word at all as he did in romans 8:23 where he identifies the adoption of Sons as the same as the Redemption of our body. the KJV stick the phrase "to wit" in there which means "the same as". But he did not use those words here.
How can you say that these references to "all" or "all men" mean only the elect unless you assume the Calvinist teaching to begin with. If Paul is writing to Timothy he would not use the word "all" to only include the people he was speaking to, this seems to be the argument which Calvinists use in other verses to explain away the word(s) "All" or "All men". And I also agree that in some cases the phrase "whole world" may refer to "a limited group of people". But just because it is in one place does not mean it is in all others. (And I do mean "ALL" others
)
Whereas it is true that all men are in complete rebellion to God (See - Rom 3:10-12), it is not true that men cannot respond positively to the Gospel when it is presented to them. According to John 12:32, every man is drawn by the power of the Gospel and can be saved if he so chooses. That is why salvation is a “whosoever will” salvation
(See - Rev 22:17 & Jn 3:14-16 & 4:14 & 11:25,26 & 12:46 & Acts 2:21 & 10:42,43 & 13:26 & Rom 9:33 & 10:9-11,13 & I Jn 5:1)
Additionally:
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.
In Titus, grace has appeared to all men and all we have to do is find it. The grace that Christians receive is not something we do. But it is something we realize. And although we found it, we never sought for it. It was shown to us by God in a conbination of many possible ways. Today the most important and significant way is done by sharing the Gospel. Several times in the old testament it is shown where people realize or find the grace of God that has always been available to them.
Genesis 6:8
But Noah
found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Genesis 39:4
And Joseph
found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.
Exodus 33:17
And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast
found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
It is our recognition of His Grace and Love that causes us, in appreciation, to obey him out of Love. We may not always obey him, but when we do not obey Him, we lose fellowship with Him. But now we are getting into a new subject so I'll close.
Just to be sure you understand my focus, I absolutely do not present these verses to support Arminianism. I believe that Arminianism is just as wrong as Calvinism. I only do this to show that there are parts on Calvinism that are questionable and in my opinion seem to be unscriptural. I think the Calvinists and Arminians both try to reconcile the temporal with the atemporal which is completely impossible. Those things that they argue happened before in the atemporal are just as easily argued to have happened after in the atemporal . But there is no before or after in the atemporal. There only IS. Compared to the temporal, the atemporal is both before and after and neither before or after. That's why God says "I AM". (not "I have been" or "will always be". There is no future or past in the atemporal. It just "IS") I am sure a Calvinist will take some of these arguments and show how it supports Arminianism. But then we would have to go into an entirely new discussion, which I am not prepared to do at the time. Maybe Jac could do that; he mentioned that he might do that a while back. Maybe he did and I missed it.
