"ALL MEN" MEANS "ALL CLASSES OF MEN"?
James White tries to get around 1 Tim. 2.4, "who will have all men be saved...," wherein the expression "all men" isn't to be taken literally, such as Ananias's statement to Paul at his conversion, "For thou shalt be a his witness unto all men..." (Acts 22.15). White reasons:
Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he would witness of Christ to every single individual human being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood this to mean all kinds and races of men.... Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as well.... Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman....
So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader context of Paul's writings to recognize this use of "all men" in a generic fashion.
On the contrary, Paul would never have understood Ananias to mean kinds and races of men. Obviously, "all kinds and races" is no more reasonable than "all men." Japanese? Australian aborigines? Siberian or North American Indians? If that is what Ananias meant, he was a false prophet. There are surely many kinds and races of men to whom Paul never did witness during his lifetime on Earth.
What would any of us understand such a statement addressed to ourselves mean? Not all men everywhere (and certainly not all kinds) but all those with whom he would come in contact, and for Paul that would include through his testimony in Scripture as well. But what does White's strained interpretation of a statement by Ananias have to do with Paul's clear declaration that God wants "all men to be saved"?
Spurgeon mocked John Calvin-mocking White and Piper as well-but contradicted his own Calvinism:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not.... You must, most you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinist friends deal with this text. "All men" say they "that is some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if He meant some men. "All men," say they: "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said, "All sorts of men" if He had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written, "All men," and unquestionably he means all men.... My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture.
With Spurgeon, we ask, if "all classes" is what the Holy Spirit meant to convey, why was it not stated clearly? The truth is that the Holy Spirit declared in unequivocal language that God is not willing for any person to perish-and they tamper with God's Word who put a Calvinist interpretation on it!
"...who gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2.6), a once-for-all sacrifice.
"...who is the Savior of all men" (1 Tim 4.10). MacArthur comments on this verse: "The point is that He is the only Savior to whom anyone in the world can turn to forgiveness and eternal life-and therefore all are urged to embrace Him as Savior.... In setting forth His own Son as Savior of the world, God displays the same kind of love to the whole world that was manifest in the Old Testament to the rebellious Israelites. It is a sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and forgiveness."
Can MacArthur be serious? This is typical "moderate Calvinist" double-speak, in contrast to the frankness of those whom they call "hyper-Calvinists" for not trying to hide the truth about Calvinism. Sincere, tender-hearted, compassionate love that offers mercy and forgiveness to those whom both "moderates" and "hypers" agree Christ didn't die, who, as all Calvinists affirm, cannot respond to the offer without being sovereignly regenerated (a privilege that "moderates" agree is only for the elect), and who (again "moderates" agree) have been predestined to eternal torment, a fact that nothing can change?! Whom do the "moderates" think they are deceiving? Surely no one but themselves.
Bookmarks