Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ecclesiastes 6:10 ¶ Whatever exists has already been named, and it is known what man is; for he cannot dispute with him who is stronger than he is. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ecclesiastes 6:10 ¶ Whatever exists has already been named [long ago], and it is known what [a frail being] man is; for he cannot dispute with Him who is mightier than he. |
Subject: Predestination |
Bible Note: Greetings Michael! 1) Universal atonement and or Universal salvation: In your post, you equate universal atonement with universal salvation. These two terms are not synonymous. While book upon book could be written on this topic alone, I would point you to Romans 5:12-21. This passage clearly makes the case that the extent of the atonement is coextensive with the fall of Adam (1:18). However, the benefit of this atonement is applied only to those who actually receive it (1:17). Granted, this is only a thumbnail sketch, but it is a pertinent passage. 2) Heb. 2:9: This is another example of how we can read into the text because of a theological viewpoint. Certainly “all” can refer to a limited number or group. “All Jews” would not include every person of the planet. “All Bakers at so and so bakery” would not even refer to every baker on the planet. However, there is no textual reason to limit the phrase ‘on behalf of all’. The text doesn’t say ‘all the elect’. The text doesn’t say ‘some men’. These were concepts that could have quite simply been stated if that was what God had intended to say. The fact that ‘sons’, or ‘brethren’, or ‘children’ are mentioned following this verse does not provide a textual justification to add words to ‘on behalf of all’. 3) Col. 1:28 and 1 Cor. 12:7: Now, I have already stated that ‘all’ can be limited by other words. That is exactly the case in these two verses. In Col. 1:28, the verbs limit the scope of ‘all men’. Paul is not saying that He ‘has’ taught all men. He is saying that everyone to whom he proclaims Christ, he teaches and admonishes. In the same way, ‘all men’ refers to those through whom the Spirit has manifested Himself. But, the limit is found in the text itself in both cases. Neither example proves that ‘all’ can never refer to ‘all men’. For instance, would argue that Rom. 3:23 does not refer to every individual? If we limit the term, it must be based on textual reasons, not theological ones. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |