Theo1689 said:
It is just as clear to me that "all men" means "all KINDS/GROUPS of men".
It would be interesting to have you prove this.
I absolutely love the blatant double standard here.
The other poster can say, "it is clear to me that 'all men' means 'all individuals'", but he doesn't have to actually PROVE it, he only has to assert it.
But when I say the same thing from the other side, suddenly I'M the one with the burden of proof. This is what we always see in heretics. They never have to prove their view, but you have to blindly accept it. If you don't accept their unproven claim, YOU have to disprove it.
This is called, "shifting the burden of proof".
And it is fallacious.
Non-Calvinists are the ones proclaiming their proof-texts saying "all men" or "world" mean "every single individual". If they are actually "proof-texts", then that means you have to PROVE that only your interpretation is the correct one, and that other interpretations are impossible.
But nobody has ever been able to do that.
I've been watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and IMO it's an absolute trainwreck. The prosecuting attorney is incompetent, and he's corrupt (he attempted to tamper with one of the witnesses). And one of the prosecution witnesses basically proved Kyle innocent. Okay.
The defense was talking with the coroner and having him agree that the evidence was "consistent" with their understanding of the incident which made Kyle not guilty. The prosecution came back and confirmed with the coroner that their understanding that made Kyle guilty was also "consistent" with the evidence.
But the prosecution can't simply say their view is "consistent" with the evidence.
They have to present a COMPELLING case to show that the defense's view is NOT possible, under a reasonable doubt.
That is EXACTLY what non-Calvinists are doing here. They are claiming that their view is "consistent" with Scripture, but they are unable to demonstrate that their view is the ONLY consistent view. And that is insufficient to convince anyone.
If you want to see evidence that "all men" or "world" does NOT necessarily mean "every single individual", I would point to a few instances off the top of my head. I'm sure given some more time, I could think of more, but right off the bat:
1) John 3:16, "God so loved the world", but He showed His love for the "world" by saving only those who believe, and condemning everyone else who made the wrong "choice". If giving eternal torment to someone you "love", just for making one bad decision, is still "love", that makes ZERO sense to me. If we applied that same scenario to a human being, everyone would agree the person was evil.
2) 2 Pet. 3:9 - The context is "beloved" (v. 8) and "us-ward" (v.9). That means "all" has been LIMITED in scope to the particular group under discussion. Ignoring the context and scope, every time you come across the word, "all" is NOT how language works.
3) John 6:44 - non-Calvinists like to link this to John 12:32, which is a completely DIFFERENT context. But even if you linked them, if God TRULY "drew" every single individual, it would be ridiculous to characterize this in the negative, "NO MAN can come to me...". Further, John 6:44 teaches that those who are drawn WILL BE RAISED UP, so if God drew "all individuals", then that leads to universalism, which the Bible proves false.
4) Luke 1:21 reads about a decree from Caesar to tax "all the world".
That clearly, historically, did NOT mean "every single individual".
