Calvinists Do Not Know What “All” Means 
I am not Armenian. If you are an Armenian you ARE NOT SAVED. 1 John 5:10-11 says, “…he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” If you believe you can lose salvation then you do not believe in eternal life. You may say, “I have eternal life, lose it when I fall away, then get it back when I repent.” But eternal life is not something that can be tapped in and out of. The Bible says in Ephesians 2:1 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” Once you are saved you are made alive. The only way you could lose that is to die again, and then it would not be eternal life.
When confronted with scriptures saying Jesus died for the whole world or all men Calvinists will usually wrest the scripture by going to “the Greek” or twisting the verse. Verses typically used to disprove limited atonement include: 1 Timothy 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, ect. While all these are verses to disprove the L of TULIP, most Calvinists have been bewitched into thinking ridiculous things about these commonly used verses- such as
'all' really means 'some of all types'
'whole world' means 'some of the jews and some gentiles'
'all' actually means 'some' in the Greek
The problem with these verses (or rather the problem with the Calvinists hearing these verses) is that they have too much of an opportunity to worm around in them.
Once these verses are taken out of context by the Calvinist it typically takes way more time to put them back in then the Calvinists are willing to listen. And if you are fortunate enough to get an argument from the Greek you might as well shake the dust off your feet. It’s impossible to disprove a person’s theology when they can change the Bible whenever they disagree with it. Personally, however, I still think limited atonement is the weakest of the 5 and the best place to start with Calvinists for two reasons:
- I have never heard a Bible verse from a Calvinist to support it. Only a terrible argument about the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice.
- If limited atonement goes, others of the 4 points make no sense. Why would God predestine only some for which he died? He must have wanted everyone to be saved, so grace must be resistible since not everyone gets saved. Man must be able to choose to be saved since grace is resistible so T is wrong… etc.
I suggest other verses. Verses with context so tight not even the most absurd Calvinist who thinks “all means some in the Greek” could not rationally twist the meaning of all men:
Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 3:22 - Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Most people are using Romans 3:23 to show that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Verse 22 also shows, though, how God died for all.
Questions for the Calvinist:
- Have all men sinned?
- Or only some from all walks of life?
- Or some jews and some gentiles?
- What does all mean in the Greek here?
Surely, they will admit everyone that ever lived has sinned. How does the context of the word all (used about ten times in this chapter) change in this one statement? Are you really going to tell me all means all in verses 9, 12, 19, it changes in verse 22, then means all again in verse 23? The next verse is even better.
I would suggest Romans 5:18. This verse is used the same as the previous verse. Get them to acknowledge all means all when it says, “judgment came upon all men.” If they admit this, how could they possibly claim the context of all has changed within this one sentence? Either the gift came upon ALL MEN or not everyone is under judgment. Whichever it is, the word all does not change meaning from the beginning to the end of this sentence. Furthermore, this verse is a simile between the judgment and the gift of eternal life: In the same way that all were made under judgment, all are made righteous.
This verse states a very simple truth: the judgment came upon ALL MEN by the offence of one (Adam) and in the same way the righteousness of one came upon ALL MEN by one (Jesus)
Try to stay on this one verse and press them for an answer. Calvinists will likely try to change the subject to another point and try to say things like…
“If Jesus died for everyone, then everyone would get saved.”
“If not everyone gets saved then Jesus' death was ineffective.”
“But if you go to romans 9…”
But keep them from using the rest of tulip to explain away this verse, we’re not talking about election and romans 9. Make them give you an answer for two things:
1. How all can change meaning from the beginning to the end of the sentence.
2. Since it obviously doesn't change, how the atonement could be limited if the righteousness is to all men according to this verse.
Don’t get off task even if you can easily refute the other points they bring up. Make them explain this verse before moving on. There’s no way they could reasonably do it. Once they admit they have no answer, then you can bring out the other things they bring up and use more common verses and the rest of the points will come down if the Calvinist is willing to listen to the Bible.