Is the word all ever used in a restricted sense ?

[atpollard]

3. Biblical Use of "All" (Πάντες) and "Every" (Πᾶς) in Context
The word πάντες (all) appears in different contexts with varying meanings:

Romans 3:23 – "πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον" ("For all have sinned") clearly means every individual, not just "all groups of people."

Including babies?
[I am only pointing out that shifting definitions based on application are not an exclusively "Calvinist" - whatever that means - trait.]

 

[atpollard]

Your argument is valid-- the Calvinist attempt to redefine πάντες as "all groups" collapses because "some from every tribe" still requires "all tribes." If no tribe is excluded, then the distinction between "all without distinction" and "all without exception" is meaningless. The biblical usage of πάντες does not support their claim, and their interpretation of passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 and Revelation 5:9 is inconsistent.

• Will "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" be in Heaven?
• Will "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION" be in Heaven?

Is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?

Let's take if from an Arminian Unlimited Atonement:

• Did Jesus die for "all without distinction"? [no GROUP is excluded categorically] ... YES.
• Did Jesus die for "all without exception"? [no INDIVIDUAL is excluded, period] ... YES.
• Will "all without distinction" be saved? [no GROUP is excluded categorically] ... YES - Jews and Gentiles - every tribe tongue people and nation will be represented in heaven.
• Will "all without exception" be saved? [no INDIVIDUAL is excluded, period] ... Do Arminians embrace UNIVERSALISM? ... I think not.

Is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?

 

[atpollard]

I'm of the opinion God does not get what He desires/wills to happen. God does not desire that believers disobey Him, rebel and commit sins. Yet believers do the above.

Therein lies the core of our disagreement.
Doctrine of God

 

[Johann]

• Will "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" be in Heaven?
• Will "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION" be in Heaven?

Is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?

Let's take if from an Arminian Unlimited Atonement:

• Did Jesus die for "all without distinction"? [no GROUP is excluded categorically] ... YES.
• Did Jesus die for "all without exception"? [no INDIVIDUAL is excluded, period] ... YES.
• Will "all without distinction" be saved? [no GROUP is excluded categorically] ... YES - Jews and Gentiles - every tribe tongue people and nation will be represented in heaven.
• Will "all without exception" be saved? [no INDIVIDUAL is excluded, period] ... Do Arminians embrace UNIVERSALISM? ... I think not.

Is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?

Let's clarify and make this real simple--

Will "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" be in Heaven?
Yes. "All without distinction" means that no group—whether Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, male or female—is excluded. Heaven will have people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation (Revelation 5:9).

Will "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION" be in Heaven?
No, because that would mean universalism—that every single person, including those who reject Christ, will be saved. Scripture clearly refutes that idea (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 20:15).

Is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?
Absolutely. "All without distinction" means no category is excluded, while "all without exception" means every single person is included. These are not the same thing.

Now, from an Arminian Unlimited Atonement perspective:

Did Jesus die for "all without distinction"?
Yes. No group is categorically excluded. Christ's atonement is for Jew and Gentile alike (1 Timothy 2:4-6, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2).

Did Jesus die for "all without exception"?
Yes. No individual is excluded—Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Will "all without distinction" be saved?
Yes. Every group—every tribe, tongue, people, and nation—will have redeemed individuals in Heaven (Revelation 7:9).

Will "all without exception" be saved?
No. Arminians do not believe in universalism. Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but only applied to those who believe (John 3:18, Acts 16:31).

So, is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?
Yes. One speaks of categories, the other of individuals. If Calvinists try to collapse the two, they create a contradiction—they'd have to affirm that all tribes are included while denying that Christ's atonement extends to all individuals within them.

Simple, yes?

J.

 

[brightfame52]

all sin yet you say the opposite regarding Gods will.

its never Gods will for a believer to sin but to be holy and obedient.

You still not making sense.

 

[atpollard]

So, is there a difference between "ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION" and "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION"?
Yes. One speaks of categories, the other of individuals. If Calvinists try to collapse the two, they create a contradiction—they'd have to affirm that all tribes are included while denying that Christ's atonement extends to all individuals within them.

Simple, yes?

J.

It is simple.
It only became complicated when you DENIED that there was a difference between the two.

Your argument is valid-- the Calvinist attempt to redefine πάντες as "all groups" collapses because "some from every tribe" still requires "all tribes." If no tribe is excluded, then the distinction between "all without distinction" and "all without exception" is meaningless.

All Tribes without distinction will be in heaven. All Groups without distinction will be in heaven. All men (Jew and Gentile) without distinction will be in heaven.

All Tribes without exception will be in heaven. All Groups without exception will be in heaven. All men without exception will NOT be in heaven ... because all men without exception is more than just Jew and Gentile.

Did Jesus die for "all without exception"?
Yes. No individual is excluded—Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

YOU define WORLD as "every individual without exception", the scripture does not.

 

[civic]

You still not making sense.

Sure I’m making sense considering the facts don’t lie.

 

[synergy]

I agree. We were specifically discussing ALL and ALL MEN in 1 Timothy 2:4–6 [4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.]. I was suggesting that "What God wants, God gets" and the "all men" that God wants saved in 1 Timothy 2:4-6 is the exact same "all men" that we see ARE SAVED in Revelation 5:9 [And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,].


There is no such thing as "a calvinst" (or "an arminian" for that matter). There is simply TOO BROAD a range of definitions for "Calvinist" (and "Arminian").

• For many, it just means "somebody that accepts "T.U.L.I.P.".
• For others is means "The writings of John Calvin" (which few have read).
• For still others, it means "Reformed Theology" (as presented in the WCF).
• Some would even include a a 4-point TU*IP.

Even if you nail down one of those definitions (let's take a 5-point TULIP as an example), Even "experts" like R.C. Sproul and John Piper and John MacArthur would disagree on things.

Given the premise: "What OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT God wants, God gets"
And the verses:

• 1 Timothy 2:4–6 [4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.].
• Revelation 5:9 [And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,].

Could you please elaborate on what "fails terribly" in equating "all" to "all groups/tribes", because I obviously cannot see your point. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I just meant that the term "all" defaults to "all people", at least to me. So if you want to say "all tribes" then you must explicitly say "all tribes". That's what I meant - that the assumption that "all" automatically equates to "all tribes" fails - terribly for those who harbor TULIP presuppositions.

 

[TomL]

It doesnt take but one verse to show evidence that the word all is used with restriction in the scripture,99.95 of the time, so you need to prove the exception. You just provide scripture, dont work, or exegete them, yet you hypocritically demand that from others. Practice what you preach

Sorry, that is a completely false claim.

Context determined meaning, not some unrelated verse

You are displaying ignorance of basic bible exegesis, and ignoring multiple verses based on some unrelated verse.

 

[brightfame52]

Sure I’m making sense considering the facts don’t lie.

Of course u make sense to yourself

 

[civic]

Of course u make sense to yourself

lol and many others .

 

[brightfame52]

lol and many others .

lol, there are many like you duh

 

[praise_yeshua]

lol, there are many like you duh

Many like you?

Take pleasure in the few is self serving.