Is the word all ever used in a restricted sense ?

[Ahar]

How do Calvinists understand references to all, everyone, all people? The first point is that the appeal to terms like all, everyone, and so on do not necessarily justify the conclusion that Christ’s atonement was universal in its intent because “From beginning to end the Bible uses expressions that are universal in form but cannot be interpreted as meaning all men distributively and inclusively.”

An example he gives is 1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

Here, Murray rightfully argues that even though the language Paul uses is comprehensive, he cannot actually mean literally “all things.” It was not lawful for Paul to oppose God’s moral law, for example.

But how are we then to determine the extent or scope of the “all” in a given passage? The answer can only be from the context. What is the point the biblical writer is seeking to make? Furthermore, some comprehensive terms like “the world” seem far more universal in their scope and less amenable to a restricted meaning.

A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context.

 

[brightfame52]

Oh and God can use cracked pots. Here is the scripture that says that.

The Potter and the Clay​

18 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear, So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do."

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Jeremiah 18:1-6

Rabbit trail

 

[Clay]

Rabbit trail

Does it crack you up?

 

[Studyman]

How do Calvinists understand references to all, everyone, all people? The first point is that the appeal to terms like all, everyone, and so on do not necessarily justify the conclusion that Christ’s atonement was universal in its intent because “From beginning to end the Bible uses expressions that are universal in form but cannot be interpreted as meaning all men distributively and inclusively.”

An example he gives is 1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

Here, Murray rightfully argues that even though the language Paul uses is comprehensive, he cannot actually mean literally “all things.” It was not lawful for Paul to oppose God’s moral law, for example.

But how are we then to determine the extent or scope of the “all” in a given passage? The answer can only be from the context. What is the point the biblical writer is seeking to make? Furthermore, some comprehensive terms like “the world” seem far more universal in their scope and less amenable to a restricted meaning.

A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context.

This is a very good point. We are all born into a world/garden/land where there exists many different religious sects and organizations, or "other voices", as it were, who "Profess to know God". And we are taught to choose between these differing voices, and be influenced by their teaching from our youth, "Hath God not said"? And indeed, every religious sect can quote book and verse to justify their philosophy or their tradition of their adopted religious sect, of which there are many. "All things are Lawful to me", "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat", , "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", "All things are pure", "Jesus declared all foods clean", etc., etc.

We are taught to pick or adopt one of these religious organizations and then "USE" selective verse in the Bible that can be seen as supporting their specific religious philosophy, thus justifying the people who adopt them. This is the overarching tradition of this world's religious system and was started in the garden of Eden.

As a result, we become trained to "Seek Justification" for ourselves, our traditions and our adopted religious philosophy.

I think you hit the nail right on the head with your statement "A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context".

I believe we are taught to do this by "the course (religions) of this world". Isaiah1 and Paul in Romans 3, exposes this about the Pharisees, in my view.

Here we have a religious people who profess to know God, but reject His judgments and commandments by their own religious traditions. And yet they gather each week to offer the Blood of an innocent righteous being to "justify themselves" as per the Law.

God, through Paul and Isaiah tells them, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:

In contrast to this tradition, we have the actual teaching of the Holy Scriptures instructing us to "Seek God's Wisdom", Seek God's Precepts, Seek the Kingdom of God, Seek God's Righteousness, Seek for Glory, Honor and immortality, seek God's forgiveness, seek God's Mercy, Seek the Lord.

And HE doesn't dwell in man-made synagogues made of wood and stone.

Jesus said to "live by" every Word of God. I have found that this is the only way to understand Him. Which makes perfect sense. How can I know what a book says, if I only read a few select passages? How can I "Put on the New Man, which AFTER GOD is created in righteousness and true Holiness, if I reject the definition of Holness and Righteousness that God gave me? How can a child understand the instruction of a parent, if they don't listen to all the parent is saying? There are examples of this all over the bible.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you"

"All things are Lawful to me" but "the soul that sins shall die". "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", but "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven".

Yes Brother, "A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context". Is this not the path that that "many" are on that Jesus said leads to destruction?

Let's "come out of this path" and strive to enter the Path Jesus walked.

 

[TibiasDad]

This is a very good point. We are all born into a world/garden/land where there exists many different religious sects and organizations, or "other voices", as it were, who "Profess to know God". And we are taught to choose between these differing voices, and be influenced by their teaching from our youth, "Hath God not said"? And indeed, every religious sect can quote book and verse to justify their philosophy or their tradition of their adopted religious sect, of which there are many. "All things are Lawful to me", "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat", , "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", "All things are pure", "Jesus declared all foods clean", etc., etc.

We are taught to pick or adopt one of these religious organizations and then "USE" selective verse in the Bible that can be seen as supporting their specific religious philosophy, thus justifying the people who adopt them. This is the overarching tradition of this world's religious system and was started in the garden of Eden.

As a result, we become trained to "Seek Justification" for ourselves, our traditions and our adopted religious philosophy.

I think you hit the nail right on the head with your statement "A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context".

I believe we are taught to do this by "the course (religions) of this world". Isaiah1 and Paul in Romans 3, exposes this about the Pharisees, in my view.

Here we have a religious people who profess to know God, but reject His judgments and commandments by their own religious traditions. And yet they gather each week to offer the Blood of an innocent righteous being to "justify themselves" as per the Law.

God, through Paul and Isaiah tells them, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:

In contrast to this tradition, we have the actual teaching of the Holy Scriptures instructing us to "Seek God's Wisdom", Seek God's Precepts, Seek the Kingdom of God, Seek God's Righteousness, Seek for Glory, Honor and immortality, seek God's forgiveness, seek God's Mercy, Seek the Lord.

And HE doesn't dwell in man-made synagogues made of wood and stone.

Jesus said to "live by" every Word of God. I have found that this is the only way to understand Him. Which makes perfect sense. How can I know what a book says, if I only read a few select passages? How can I "Put on the New Man, which AFTER GOD is created in righteousness and true Holiness, if I reject the definition of Holness and Righteousness that God gave me? How can a child understand the instruction of a parent, if they don't listen to all the parent is saying? There are examples of this all over the bible.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you"

"All things are Lawful to me" but "the soul that sins shall die". "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", but "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven".

Yes Brother, "A lot of us read our Bibles and look to back up our theology and become blind to the true context". Is this not the path that that "many" are on that Jesus said leads to destruction?

Let's "come out of this path" and strive to enter the Path Jesus walked.

Question: are you saying that we shouldn’t be eating ham or pork chops?

Doug

 

[Studyman]

Question: are you saying that we shouldn’t be eating ham or pork chops?

Doug

Gosh no! Who am I to define what is Holy, or clean or good? No "I'm not saying" a man shouldn't do this or that. I didn't share with you "MY" judgments or "MY" definition of what is holy and what is not. I am simply being a "Doer" of the Christ's Sayings as HE instructs. My Father knows I have need of food and drink and other things. After all, HE created me, Yes? The Jesus "of the Bible" said for me not to worry about these things, but to Seek the Kingdom of God and HIS Righteousness, and all these things will be added to me. And if you were to Seek God's Righteousness, you too would find God's instruction for His Children concerning what is food and what is not, some of which I posted for consideration.

Lev. 11: 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

So no Doug, "I" am not telling you what we shouldn't be eating. The Words of God that the Jesus "of the Bible" said to "Live By" is the ONE that defines these things for me. And I simply post HIS Words as the source of my instruction in righteousness.

Now granted, there was a time when I, Like Saul, before he became a New Man "which after God was created in righteousness and True Holiness", didn't believe Jesus Words. I, like Saul, had adopted the religious philosophies and traditions of this world's religious system, "Who professed to know God". This was the old man, "Wherein in time past we walked according to the course (religions) of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience".

During this time, I rejected God's Judgments and replaced them with my own. I rejected God's statutes and walked instead, in the man-made high days popular in the religions of this world. I even adopted images of God in the likeness of man.

When I left these "many" differing, seductive and popular religious sects of this world I was born into, and studied the Words of Christ for myself, I found out that the desire to reject God's Commandments and Judgments comes from within me, not from without, and this defiles me.

And what does it say about me if I don't trust Jesus' instructions concerning whose Words to live by, regarding something so basic and rudimentary as food and drink? If I'm not even willing to "Yield myself" to God in these little things, how am I any different than the Christians in Matt. 7:22?

After all, as a father of a child, I demanded the right to direct my little girl what was food and what wasn't food. She didn't understand as a two-year-old, that I wouldn't let her eat slugs or dog turds because "I" knew these things were not food. And she "Yielded herself" to my judgments concerning these things. As a result of her humility, she came to know how to "make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten".

I am always fascinated how that so "many" in this world who call Jesus Lord, Lord, demand the right to instruct their children pertaining to something so basic as what to eat and what to drink. Yet they defiantly deny the God and Father of all the same basic right, even after Jesus said to "live by" His Words.

Doug, answer this question for me please, since I answered your question.

Those children that came to Jesus, do you really believe that HE would feed them dog meat or slugs or swine's flesh? Do you believe Jesus learned "To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten"? Or did HE "Live By" the Words of another?

 

[TibiasDad]

Those children that came to Jesus, do you really believe that HE would feed them dog meat or slugs or swine's flesh?

First, I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question; I don’t believe I suggested that Jesus taught anything in particular about what we should feed our children.

But this said, Jesus did not do anything contrary to the law, but redefined the meaning of the law.

Do you believe Jesus learned "To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten"? Or did HE "Live By" the Words of another?

Again, Jesus was raised in the traditional Jewish way of life. As a child he was submissive to his elders, but as an adult he taught that “what goes into the mouth does not make the man unclean” and thus declared all foods clean.

Obviously, feeding dog meat or slugs to children is not something anyone would naturally do.


Doug

 

[Studyman]

First, I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question; I don’t believe I suggested that Jesus taught anything in particular about what we should feed our children.

Well, HE did address it in Matt. 6. Please understand that I am not questioning God's Judgments or Jesus instruction to "Live By" them, as HE did. I'm questioning the popular religious tradition of this world promoted by the many "who come in His Name". Religions who promote the rejection or irrelevance of His Judgments, Statutes or commandments.

And NO, Jesus would never give to any one's children, or their parents for that matter, dog meat, slugs or swine's flesh, or any beast or creature that was not defined as Food by His Father.

But this said, Jesus did not do anything contrary to the law, but redefined the meaning of the law.

Where did Jesus "redefine" God's Law? Didn't HE simply explain it to those who had been led astray by the teaching of "Them of old time", who were "partial in the Law", who "Transgressed God's commandments by living by their own traditions", who "taught for doctrines the Commandments of men"? I know several religious sects of this world who promote the foolishness that the "Them of old time" spoken of by Jesus in Matt. 5, was God His Father and the Prophets HE sent. Can you believe that? And yet there are "Many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who actually preach that Jesus was correcting God, His Father, in Matt. 5.

It's no wonder Jesus said to "Take Heed" of a specific religion, Who HE said shall "come in my name, saying, I, (Jesus) am Christ;

Next time you read Matt. 5, try and separate yourself from this world's religious philosophy, and consider that the Law and Prophets says, "Thou shall not kill", and the corrupt Priests, the "them of old", time did teach this. But they didn't teach "That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment". Even though God and His Prophets taught this as well. Jesus lived by Every Word of God.

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

In every case, what Jesus said, and what the Law and Prophets taught, were the same.

Jesus didn't "re-define" His Father's Word that HE instructed us to Live By, He defined them by including "Every word" which proceeded out of the mouth of His Father. The "Them of old time" omitted the weightier matters of the Law. Jesus never did such a thing.

Again, Jesus was raised in the traditional Jewish way of life.

Really? Jesus was raised "transgressing His Father's Commandments by Jews religious Traditions"? Jesus was raised "Omitting the weightier matters of the Law"? Jesus was stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, and always resisted the Holy Ghost? Are you really saying that Jesus prosecuted John the Baptist who God sent? If Jesus was raised in Jewish Traditions, how was Saul and Gamaliel raised?

This is why I don't listen to this world's religious sects Doug, and why Jesus told me to take heed of them. They spend all their time "using" cherry-picked scriptures for the purpose of justifying their adopted religious traditions. I believe a man should use the Bible to "Seek God's Righteousness" not just to seek justification.

As a child he was submissive to his elders,

No, Jesus didn't Yield Himself to the doctrines and traditions of the Pharisees or the Chief Priests or Gamaliel. That's foolishness and contrary to Scriptures and demeaning to the Christ. His Father was His Elder, and Jesus was submissive to Him since HE was at least 12. At least this is what the Bible actually says.

but as an adult he taught that “what goes into the mouth does not make the man unclean” and thus declared all foods clean.

I see how this world's religions use this one sentence to justify their lust to reject God's judgments concerning what is food and what is not food. It's fascinating really. The Pharisees accused the Disciples of Sin because they ate bread without washing their hands a certain way. Claiming this behavior made the bread, and as a result them, defiled. (And many other such things they do)

Matt. 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but "to eat with unwashen hands" defileth not a man.

There is no Law of God against eating a piece of bread without first washing your hands a certain way. But there is a Law of God against adultery, drinking blood, eating goats that have been strangled, murder, eating swine's flesh or snails etc. You can read about God's Commandments in your own Bible.

Does the attractive woman defile me? Or is it the lust and lack of God's Love which resides in a man's heart, that defiles a man? Does the Blood that Paul said to "Abstain from eating" defile me? Or is it the lack of respect and honor for God and His Instruction, that exists within man's heart?

I know it is the tradition of this world's religious system to "USE" selected verses in the bible to justify their rejection of God's Judgments and Statutes. The Pharisees did this, Baptists do this, JW do this, Catholic's do this.

You are free to "Yield yourself" a servant to whomever you choose to obey. I'm just pointing out that Jesus didn't ever break even the least of His Father's Commandments, nor did HE teach others to do so.

You are here promoting a religious philosophy in which you preach to others that Jesus "redefined" His Father's Laws. That HE lived by worthless Jewish Traditions HE rebuked others for living by. That Jesus promoted the reject of God's Law regarding what is food and what is not.

I don't believe the Scriptures support this religious philosophy you have adopted.

Obviously, feeding dog meat or slugs to children is not something anyone would naturally do.
Doug

What's the difference between slugs, snails or swine according to the Word of God that the Jesus "of the Bible" instructed us to "Live By"?