"All men"

Theo1689

Well-known member
So I just discovered this AMAZING (20 year old) a cappella group, "Home Free". I love harmony, I love barbershop, Oak Ridge Boys, Statlers, PTX, etc.

So I'm watching a music teacher's reaction to their cover of "Man of Constant Sorrow" (if you remember the Soggy Bottom Boys from the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), and in the background of this teacher's "studio", there is a sign:

"SURELY NOT
EVERYBODY
WAS KUNG FU
FIGHTING."

The sign was funny. But how DARE he suggest that NOT "everybody was Kung Fu fighting". Didn't the lyrics EXPLICITLY say that EVERYBODY (I repeat) EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting?

How dare we not believe the lyrics?!
I mean, "everybody" means "EVERYBODY", right?

Even those who were asleep?
Even those who were paralyzed or bedridden?
Even infants and little children?

It was "EVERYBODY".
The lyrics said so.
So it MUST be true, right?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
So I just discovered this AMAZING (20 year old) a cappella group, "Home Free". I love harmony, I love barbershop, Oak Ridge Boys, Statlers, PTX, etc.

So I'm watching a music teacher's reaction to their cover of "Man of Constant Sorrow" (if you remember the Soggy Bottom Boys from the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), and in the background of this teacher's "studio", there is a sign:

"SURELY NOT
EVERYBODY
WAS KUNG FU
FIGHTING."

The sign was funny. But how DARE he suggest that NOT "everybody was Kung Fu fighting". Didn't the lyrics EXPLICITLY say that EVERYBODY (I repeat) EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting?

How dare we not believe the lyrics?!
I mean, "everybody" means "EVERYBODY", right?

Even those who were asleep?
Even those who were paralyzed or bedridden?
Even infants and little children?

It was "EVERYBODY".
The lyrics said so.
So it MUST be true, right?
Right.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
So I just discovered this AMAZING (20 year old) a cappella group, "Home Free". I love harmony, I love barbershop, Oak Ridge Boys, Statlers, PTX, etc.

So I'm watching a music teacher's reaction to their cover of "Man of Constant Sorrow" (if you remember the Soggy Bottom Boys from the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), and in the background of this teacher's "studio", there is a sign:

"SURELY NOT
EVERYBODY
WAS KUNG FU
FIGHTING."

The sign was funny. But how DARE he suggest that NOT "everybody was Kung Fu fighting". Didn't the lyrics EXPLICITLY say that EVERYBODY (I repeat) EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting?

How dare we not believe the lyrics?!
I mean, "everybody" means "EVERYBODY", right?

Even those who were asleep?
Even those who were paralyzed or bedridden?
Even infants and little children?

It was "EVERYBODY".
The lyrics said so.
So it MUST be true, right?
Should you ignore context, eschew scripture, and form your theology based on pop music ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Should you ignore context,

I'm not ignoring any context.
Quite the contrary, YOU are.

eschew scripture,

I'm not the one "eschewing scripture".
YOU are.

and form your theology based on pop music ?

It's simply a relevant example of how terms are used.


But if you prefer the Bible:

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Was "all the world" taxed?
Did the Chinese pay taxes to Caesar?
Did the Australian aborigines pay taxes to Caesar?

I mean, "all the world" means EVERYONE, right?
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
I'm not ignoring any context.
Quite the contrary, YOU are.



I'm not the one "eschewing scripture".
YOU are.



It's simply a relevant example of how terms are used.


But if you prefer the Bible:

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Was "all the world" taxed?
Did the Chinese pay taxes to Caesar?
Did the Australian aborigines pay taxes to Caesar?


I mean, "all the world" means EVERYONE, right?
“All means all and that’s all that all means.”

I can do all things through Christ Jesus which strengthens me. Philippians 4:13

Seeing “All means all and that’s all that all means”, then we can rape, murder, lie, cheat, steal, molest, stab, shoot, beat up ppl, take His name in vain, commit idolatry, take our neighbor’s spouse from them, through Christ Jesus, which strengthens us, right?

Again, “All means all, and that’s all that all means.” Following that logic? Whoa boy!
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
So I just discovered this AMAZING (20 year old) a cappella group, "Home Free". I love harmony, I love barbershop, Oak Ridge Boys, Statlers, PTX, etc.

So I'm watching a music teacher's reaction to their cover of "Man of Constant Sorrow" (if you remember the Soggy Bottom Boys from the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), and in the background of this teacher's "studio", there is a sign:

"SURELY NOT
EVERYBODY
WAS KUNG FU
FIGHTING."

The sign was funny. But how DARE he suggest that NOT "everybody was Kung Fu fighting". Didn't the lyrics EXPLICITLY say that EVERYBODY (I repeat) EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting?

How dare we not believe the lyrics?!
I mean, "everybody" means "EVERYBODY", right?

Even those who were asleep?
Even those who were paralyzed or bedridden?
Even infants and little children?

It was "EVERYBODY".
The lyrics said so.
So it MUST be true, right?

Just there is only one degree/type of faith?

You all do it and pretend you don't. YOU do it when it fits your narrative.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I'm not ignoring any context.
Quite the contrary, YOU are.

This sounds like a child's refrain

No I am not but you are

Lets not forget your effort to do theology by pop music


I'm not the one "eschewing scripture".
YOU are.

Oh Did you imagine everyone was kung fu fighting is scripture
It's simply a relevant example of how terms are used.

Which of course ignores context of scripture and BAGD which was quoted

Including your failure to address

John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Its relationship to

John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In the context

John 3:14-18 (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

and of course BAGD

b. of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 446.

and your obvious mishandling of especially as shown by scripture

2 Timothy 4:13 (KJV)
13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

It simply does not eliminate that which is not especially noted

Were Timothy to understand especially in the faulty manner you proclaim he would have left the cloak and the books and only bought the parchments



But if you prefer the Bible:

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Was "all the world" taxed?
Did the Chinese pay taxes to Caesar?
Did the Australian aborigines pay taxes to Caesar?


I mean, "all the world" means EVERYONE, right?

See above

Deal with the evidence you ran from last discussion

Evidence which is actually relevant to the scope of discussion

The meaning of world in soteriological and atonement passages

not some irrelevant context
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theophilos

Active member
So I just discovered this AMAZING (20 year old) a cappella group, "Home Free". I love harmony, I love barbershop, Oak Ridge Boys, Statlers, PTX, etc.

So I'm watching a music teacher's reaction to their cover of "Man of Constant Sorrow" (if you remember the Soggy Bottom Boys from the movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), and in the background of this teacher's "studio", there is a sign:

"SURELY NOT
EVERYBODY
WAS KUNG FU
FIGHTING."

The sign was funny. But how DARE he suggest that NOT "everybody was Kung Fu fighting". Didn't the lyrics EXPLICITLY say that EVERYBODY (I repeat) EVERYBODY was Kung Fu fighting?

How dare we not believe the lyrics?!
I mean, "everybody" means "EVERYBODY", right?

Even those who were asleep?
Even those who were paralyzed or bedridden?
Even infants and little children?

It was "EVERYBODY".
The lyrics said so.
So it MUST be true, right?
Yes, the Calvinist understanding is that all or everybody = only the elect. Does that rule apply to this verse?

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God . . . Romans 3:23
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes, the Calvinist understanding is that all or everybody = only the elect.

Um, no.
"All" refers to the entire subset of WHICHEVER group is being discussed.
And that depends on the CONTEXT.

Does that rule apply to this verse?

It's not a Calvinist "rule".

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God . . . Romans 3:23

Rom. 3:12-20 makes the scope EXHAUSTIVE to every single individual, "NO, NOT ONE" (Rom. 3:12)
 

Theophilos

Active member
Um, no.
"All" refers to the entire subset of WHICHEVER group is being discussed.
And that depends on the CONTEXT.



It's not a Calvinist "rule".



Rom. 3:12-20 makes the scope EXHAUSTIVE to every single individual, "NO, NOT ONE" (Rom. 3:12)
The quote in Romans is from Psalm 14, which begins:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They were corrupted, and they have become abominable in their studies.
There is no one who does good; there is not even one.
Psalm 14:1

Does the passage in Romans only apply to atheists?

Likewise, what is the context for "all" in this passage?
And so I beg you, first of all, to make supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings for all men,
for kings, and for all who are in high places, so that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and chastity.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who wants all men to be saved and to arrive at an acknowledgment of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself as a redemption for all . . .

1 Tim 2:1-6

Does all men really mean all people in the world?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The quote in Romans is from Psalm 14, which begins:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They were corrupted, and they have become abominable in their studies.
There is no one who does good; there is not even one.
Psalm 14:1

Does the passage in Romans only apply to atheists?

Nope.
You think believers are justified by "being good"?

Likewise, what is the context for "all" in this passage?
And so I beg you, first of all, to make supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings for all men,
for kings, and for all who are in high places, so that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and chastity.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who wants all men to be saved and to arrive at an acknowledgment of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself as a redemption for all . . .

1 Tim 2:1-6

Does all men really mean all people in the world?

The "all men" here refers to all CLASSES of men (eg. "kings", "those in authority", etc.)

Again, the issue is not on the meaning of "all".
The issue is about the understanding of "men".

Refer to Rev. 5:9, which demonstrates that "all" (or "every", the singular form) applies to the GROUPS, not to the individuals.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
This sounds like a child's refrain

No I am not but you are

<Chuckle>
I see.....

So when you falsely accuse ME of "taking out of context", it's perfectly fine.
But when I (rightly) accuse YOU, it's suddenly "a child's refrain".

Whatever....


I've noticed over the years that many people accuse others of what they are personally guilty of, so when they themselves get (rightly) accused, they can make the same insulting response.

It's quite fascinating, actually...
 

Theophilos

Active member
Nope.
You think believers are justified by "being good"?

No, I don't believe that. The context of the passage is that it begins with: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

Logically that should be limiting the "all" in the passage Romans.

The "all men" here refers to all CLASSES of men (eg. "kings", "those in authority", etc.)

Again, the issue is not on the meaning of "all".
The issue is about the understanding of "men".

Refer to Rev. 5:9, which demonstrates that "all" (or "every", the singular form) applies to the GROUPS, not to the individuals.

Logically the same limits should apply to "all have sinned". It should not apply to each and every person in the world; it should only apply to classes of men.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No, I don't believe that. The context of the passage is that it begins with: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

Logically that should be limiting the "all" in the passage Romans.

How so?
Do you think that there are some who are not "fools"?

Logically the same limits should apply to "all have sinned". It should not apply to each and every person in the world; it should only apply to classes of men.

Why?
You are trying to force the SAME interpretation to EVERY instance of "all", while IGNORING the context. That is NOT how you to proper exegesis.

Rom. 3 isn't about "classes of men".
It says, "No, NOT ONE."
INDIVIDUALS.

1 Tim. 2 is about "classes of men".
"Kings", "those in authority", etc.

We have to interpret each passage according to its OWN context.


Btw, I noticed you simply IGNORED Rev. 5:9.
Why am I not surprised?
 

Theophilos

Active member
How so?
Do you think that there are some who are not "fools"?



Why?
You are trying to force the SAME interpretation to EVERY instance of "all", while IGNORING the context. That is NOT how you to proper exegesis.

Rom. 3 isn't about "classes of men".
It says, "No, NOT ONE."
INDIVIDUALS.

1 Tim. 2 is about "classes of men".
"Kings", "those in authority", etc.

We have to interpret each passage according to its OWN context.
I think all men means every person in the world in these passages. Sin is a refusal to accept that God exists on some level, but God wants everyone to repent. That is affirmed elsewhere in scripture:
But there is no just man on earth, who does good and does not sin. Ecclesiastes 7:21

The same is true for the God wanting all people everywhere to come to him, but some are not willing.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone those who have been sent to you. How often I have wanted to gather your children together, in the way that a hen gathers her young under her wings. But you were not willing! Matthew 23:37
 
Top