Specious Arguments Arminians make: All means all
This is the first of a series I will be posting on this blog examining various claims made by Arminians in support of their tradition. I will define lying as making statements you a. know to be false, b. suspect to be false while ignoring correction so you can claim to have not known better, or c. misuse historic definitions to allow you to make false claims. I don’t accept objections that try to define lying differently or off point statements used in an attempt to imply that the claims made are not lies. I have given the definition I will be using; willful ignorance doesn’t allow one to escape the fact that they are prevaricating.
“All means all”
The universalizing of passages to inflate the group being discussed one of the most frequent claims made by Arminians. Arminians try to universalize terms such as all, any, whoever, and so on when it suits their purpose while not doing so when it doesn’t. To begin with “all” means everyone or thing contained in a particular set, and that set will be defined by the context of the passage. Arminians often ignore the context in which “all” is used and assume it means far more than the passage would allow. “All men” does not necessarily mean every person in the world. Men can mean every male, every human, or people from everyplace within a geographic location. An example would be Augustus’ decree that “all the world should be taxed”. Now were we to follow the logic of the Arminians we would have to believe that the Chinese were commanded to pay taxes to Caesar. But it is quite obvious that what is meant is that “world” means the Roman Empire, and this means “all” of the group defined by the context in which it is used. Some of the scriptures which those who advocate a man-centered soteriology are 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, and Revelation 3:20
Peter speaks of a particular group in 2 Peter 3:9 when he says that God is “not willing that any should perish”. The context of the letter defines what group is meant by “any”. In this case the context identifies which group Peter is referring to as “us”, and “us” is his intended audience: the Church. Similarly when Peter says, “all should come to repentance” he is not referring to all humans, but the word “all” is referring to its object: “us”. Again who is the “us” he is speaking to? The church; all those who believe!
Another favorite of the Arminians is John 3:16. For God so loved the world (i.e. all people in the world) that He gave His only Son that whosoever (i.e. all men can believe) believes in Him …”. The text does not support their claims, which a fair reading of the text shows, but they insist that it implies the ability to come to Christ is possessed by all men. First Gods love for His creation does not mean every person in the world; anymore than my saying “I love school” means I love every person at my school. Further, despite their emphasis on “whosoever” (a word that is not even in the original text) the text doesn’t imply the ability for a person to believe. It is a simple statement of fact: God loves His creation and those persons in that creation who believe in Jesus will be saved. It does not address ability; it’s not even the subject of the passage. It is simply telling us why Jesus had become incarnate. God loved His creation and sent his Son to reconcile some of the people in that creation to Himself through faith in His Son. It does not address how many people will believe, or how they come to believe.
One of the passages most used by free-will advocates during their altar calls is Revelation 3:20. They will usually put greater emphasis on the word “any” to imply that every person in the world has the ability to open the door. Unfortunately this is not stated nor implied by the passage. Notice that a person opens the door also does something else. They hear Christ’s voice. Does every human on the planet hear His voice? Scripture says no. This is borne out by John 10:26,27 where he tells the Pharisees they are not his sheep while stating, “My sheep hear my voice”, plainly implying that they do not hear his voice because “you are not my sheep”. In 1 Corinthians 2:13,14 we find Paul discussing the gospel as the words that “we speak” of the things “taught by the Spirit”, but “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God”. Unregenerate man cannot even hear God’s word, i.e. he cannot accept the Lord’s message (though he may hear the sound). So we see that to open the door one must “hear Jesus’ word”, and to do so he must be one of His sheep. He must be regenerate. He cannot be a “natural man”.
These are only a few of the passages the Arminian mishandles this way, and a close examination of the other texts will reveal that the arguments on these are just as wrong as the three I reviewed here. They must surely recognize the inconsistency of their arguments. Particularly without excuse are pastors; who are trained in exegesis, hermeneutics, and languages. This is dishonest and they should know better. They selectively ignore context of passages and make facile claims such as “all means all”. To disguise their dishonesty they’ll often give an example that appeals to the emotions or jump to some other isolated passage that is not even related to subject of the passage they are butchering. If one is inconsistent in their use of language it is clear they know there is a problem with their argument. Now if one is unaware of their inconsistency they are subject to correction, but if they refuse correction repeatedly they are simply liars; willfully suppressing the truth. This sadly is the case with a large number of well-known preachers; they refuse correction and are dishonest in dealing with those who try to correct their errors. I pray that God may grant them repentance.
“All means all”
The universalizing of passages to inflate the group being discussed one of the most frequent claims made by Arminians. Arminians try to universalize terms such as all, any, whoever, and so on when it suits their purpose while not doing so when it doesn’t. To begin with “all” means everyone or thing contained in a particular set, and that set will be defined by the context of the passage. Arminians often ignore the context in which “all” is used and assume it means far more than the passage would allow. “All men” does not necessarily mean every person in the world. Men can mean every male, every human, or people from everyplace within a geographic location. An example would be Augustus’ decree that “all the world should be taxed”. Now were we to follow the logic of the Arminians we would have to believe that the Chinese were commanded to pay taxes to Caesar. But it is quite obvious that what is meant is that “world” means the Roman Empire, and this means “all” of the group defined by the context in which it is used. Some of the scriptures which those who advocate a man-centered soteriology are 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, and Revelation 3:20
Peter speaks of a particular group in 2 Peter 3:9 when he says that God is “not willing that any should perish”. The context of the letter defines what group is meant by “any”. In this case the context identifies which group Peter is referring to as “us”, and “us” is his intended audience: the Church. Similarly when Peter says, “all should come to repentance” he is not referring to all humans, but the word “all” is referring to its object: “us”. Again who is the “us” he is speaking to? The church; all those who believe!
Another favorite of the Arminians is John 3:16. For God so loved the world (i.e. all people in the world) that He gave His only Son that whosoever (i.e. all men can believe) believes in Him …”. The text does not support their claims, which a fair reading of the text shows, but they insist that it implies the ability to come to Christ is possessed by all men. First Gods love for His creation does not mean every person in the world; anymore than my saying “I love school” means I love every person at my school. Further, despite their emphasis on “whosoever” (a word that is not even in the original text) the text doesn’t imply the ability for a person to believe. It is a simple statement of fact: God loves His creation and those persons in that creation who believe in Jesus will be saved. It does not address ability; it’s not even the subject of the passage. It is simply telling us why Jesus had become incarnate. God loved His creation and sent his Son to reconcile some of the people in that creation to Himself through faith in His Son. It does not address how many people will believe, or how they come to believe.
One of the passages most used by free-will advocates during their altar calls is Revelation 3:20. They will usually put greater emphasis on the word “any” to imply that every person in the world has the ability to open the door. Unfortunately this is not stated nor implied by the passage. Notice that a person opens the door also does something else. They hear Christ’s voice. Does every human on the planet hear His voice? Scripture says no. This is borne out by John 10:26,27 where he tells the Pharisees they are not his sheep while stating, “My sheep hear my voice”, plainly implying that they do not hear his voice because “you are not my sheep”. In 1 Corinthians 2:13,14 we find Paul discussing the gospel as the words that “we speak” of the things “taught by the Spirit”, but “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God”. Unregenerate man cannot even hear God’s word, i.e. he cannot accept the Lord’s message (though he may hear the sound). So we see that to open the door one must “hear Jesus’ word”, and to do so he must be one of His sheep. He must be regenerate. He cannot be a “natural man”.
These are only a few of the passages the Arminian mishandles this way, and a close examination of the other texts will reveal that the arguments on these are just as wrong as the three I reviewed here. They must surely recognize the inconsistency of their arguments. Particularly without excuse are pastors; who are trained in exegesis, hermeneutics, and languages. This is dishonest and they should know better. They selectively ignore context of passages and make facile claims such as “all means all”. To disguise their dishonesty they’ll often give an example that appeals to the emotions or jump to some other isolated passage that is not even related to subject of the passage they are butchering. If one is inconsistent in their use of language it is clear they know there is a problem with their argument. Now if one is unaware of their inconsistency they are subject to correction, but if they refuse correction repeatedly they are simply liars; willfully suppressing the truth. This sadly is the case with a large number of well-known preachers; they refuse correction and are dishonest in dealing with those who try to correct their errors. I pray that God may grant them repentance.
posted by eklektos | 7:44 PM
<< Home