the "all" verse 18 and the "many" in 19

That's just it. The idea that Christ died for all IS consistent with Scripture. I'm not arguing for universalism, but I disagree with the Calvinist definition of sovereignty. Calvinists work backwards to explain away all. I prefer to start with the Scriptures and work my way forward. As I've shown, Paul uses all in a very specific way. When he doesn't mean all, he gives a limiting word.

There's also a very parallel idea. If all means all as far as condemnation goes, why would the all change meanings, when he creates a parallel ideas?

Or, if his righteousness was offered to all men, coming in the form of the Holy Spirit, we have no contradiction. Romans 1:18-20 makes it sound like no one is without excuse. In your point of view, does this mean that children who haven't heard the gospel are saved or not? How about those who haven't heard the gospel? Are they damned or saved?

But we believe in free choice! What if it's man's fault they didn't go? What if it's our fault, instead of God's? (Kinda like the whole sin thing - Arminians say that it's man's fault we screwed up - not some eternal decree.)

The previous verse says absolutely nothing about those who choose to sin. It refers one man's offense which caused death to reign and contrast that with the those who reign in Christ. In spite of your condescending tone, you have stripped this scripture from its context in an effort to make it say more than it does. Nothing in a normal reading and understanding of this passage invalidates Calvinism. You are left to seize upon individual words and verses out of context or to draw meaningless generalizations in order to make your point.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Do we not choose to sin? Who committed the many trespasses? That's just it - in a normal reading, we take what we read as what it is - we don't try to "explain" it away somehow. To do such strips away its meaning. I've shown how Paul uses the world "all." He's very specific in his uses. Almost every book in the NT says something about Christ dying for the world, Him loving the world, or Him coming for all men. There's too much there to explain away because of a Calvinist presupposition.

 

No you haven't. You missed it here becuase Paul is not arguing for universalism which you have to if you believe "all" means "all without exception." You missed the boat.

 

No, you've simply shown that sometimes Paul uses limiting words, and then you are assuming that every time he doesn't limit the word, it means everyone in the world. That's a big assumption.

Yes, Paul is using the idea that these things are in some way the same, but working in opposite directions. But he is doing the same thing in 1 Cor 15 too, and there the groups are obviously not the same. Why would they be here?

You know what? You too have made the two groups be different groups. The first one, Adam's group, is now every single person ever born. The second one, Christ's group, is now all those who choose to follow him. Your groups have become, for all practical purposes, the same ones the Calvinists say they are: those "in Adam" and those "in Christ".

[ June 20, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

I haven’t noticed anyone mention vs 17 to explain the alls of verse 18. Someone objected to the use of 1 Cor. 15 (which surprised me since every serious student of the Word knows Scripture interprets Scripture) but surely you can’t object to the preceding verse especially since there is a “therefore” connecting the two verses.

Romans 5:17
If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

How much more clear can Paul get? The second all refers tothose who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness. As has been stated many times, to believe otherwise is universalism. You can’t get around that no matter how hard you try. It seems to me that sometimes we tend to overlook the obvious in trying to prove our presuppositions.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

Pastor Larry,

I am going to use one of your word gymnastics and mental stretches.

Romans 3:23 says, ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' All doesn't mean each of His created beings, because I am French by way of nationality. He obviously is speaking of all of certain blocks of people in His world, but in my case it does not apply.

In your weighty, opinion, does ALL in Romans 3:23 really mean every person who has lived or ever will live?

 

Some people have been taught wrongfully that Christ if He did die for the sins of all people, must save everyone, a kind of universalistic salvation. Nothing is lost if Christ died for everyone, but not all receive Christ and are saved. Their ultimate damnation cannot be laid at His feet or to His charge. He made available salvation for everyone, but He does not ramrod or strong-arm people into the Kingdom of God. This was decreed by God who made us in His Image, so we can have freedom to either receive or to reject His marvelous grace.

Christ died for the sins of the ‘rich young ruler,' but the ruler thought the cost of obeying Christ's demands were off his scope of human reasoning. He did not want to give up his riches. In this passage Jesus did not hint of your clandestine hidden election, but tells His disciples that because people are human/sinful there is a tendency of the rich to miss the Kingdom. [Matthew 19:20].

Mark 10:20 is even more expressive of God's love for this man. ‘Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .' If he was destined to Hell according to your erring system, then why do we have Christ loving this rich man. After all, all of the non-elect were despised from the foundation of the world and or bypassed as the moderate Calvinists like to affirm.

According to my understanding Christ would have saved this man but this rich man was like one of those souls where ‘the seed fell on the wrong ground.' [Matt. 13:3-9] By this I mean that His good word/the seed was rejected because of the hardness of the rich man's heart. Here is where Resistible Grace becomes a clear doctrinal teaching for the Christian church and all who love and discern His truth.

I was told that the United Church in Canada has deleted from their Bible all references to the Creation fact. They believe the Creation event of the Bible to be fiction and accept a more evolutionary position as to beginning events. I notice also, that Calvinists have nothing to say about the different soils, [Matt. 13:3-8] depicting the readiness or lack thereof of human response to His most glorious Gospel and grace. You can still believe in grace, as we do, and also believe this portion of holy Scripture.

 

Some people have been taught wrongfully that Christ if He did die for the sins of all people, must save everyone, a kind of universalistic salvation. Nothing is lost if Christ died for everyone, but not all receive Christ and are saved.

But if Christ died for everyone then some of His plan failed because of man. I used to believe and still hear over and over that Christ died for everyone’s sin except the sin of unbelief. But, then I realized, all sins must be covered by the blood – if He didn’t die for the sin of unbelief, when would it be covered by the blood? It wouldn’t be. Even our future sin was covered and we have an Advocate with the father – but I’ve seen no place in Scripture that covers the sin of unbelief. So, when a person of his own “free will” chooses to believe in Christ, how does that sin of unbelief get covered.

Their ultimate damnation cannot be laid at His feet or to His charge. He made available salvation for everyone, but He does not ramrod or strong-arm people into the Kingdom of God.

God gives us a heart of flesh so we are able to willingly believe the Gospel and accept Him as our Savior and make Him Lord of our lives. No strong-armming or ramroding there!! Just being drawn to Him because we are His sheep.

This was decreed by God who made us in His Image, so we can have freedom to either receive or to reject His marvelous grace.

Where was this decreed ?

Christ died for the sins of the ‘rich young ruler,' but the ruler thought the cost of obeying Christ's demands were off his scope of human reasoning. He did not want to give up his riches. In this passage Jesus did not hint of your clandestine hidden election,

There was nothing clandestine or hidden regarding His response – see below.

but tells His disciples that because people are human/sinful there is a tendency of the rich to miss the Kingdom. [Matthew 19:20].

But you failed to quote verse 26 which answers the disciples question regarding who can be saved – “ With men this is impossible , but with God all things are possible."

Mark 10:20 is even more expressive of God's love for this man. ‘Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .' If he was destined to Hell according to your erring system, then why do we have Christ loving this rich man. After all, all of the non-elect were despised from the foundation of the world and or bypassed as the moderate Calvinists like to affirm.

Of course, Jesus loved him. Mat. 5:43 tells us to love our enemies – wouldn’t He do the same? He just didn’t love him in the same way as He loves His own.

According to my understanding Christ would have saved this man but this rich man was like one of those souls where ‘the seed fell on the wrong ground.' [Matt. 13:3-9] By this I mean that His good word/the seed was rejected because of the hardness of the rich man's heart. Here is where Resistible Grace becomes a clear doctrinal teaching for the Christian church and all who love and discern His truth.

I was told that the United Church in Canada has deleted from their Bible all references to the Creation fact. They believe the Creation event of the Bible to be fiction and accept a more evolutionary position as to beginning events. I notice also, that Calvinists have nothing to say about the different soils, [Matt. 13:3-8] depicting the readiness or lack thereof of human response to His most glorious Gospel and grace. You can still believe in grace, as we do, and also believe this portion of holy Scripture.

This comparison between the United Church in Canada and Calvinists seems bit much. Especially since Calvinists probably haven’t addressed the Parable of the Sower because Scripture does. In verses 11-12 we see that Jesus spoke in parables so that not all would understand since it was not given to them to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Word does not always fall on fertile ground because God has not made it fertile.

 

They are not mine. I am simply reading the verse as it stands.

My opinion is certainly not weighty but you are right that not 'all' of God's created beings without exception are sinners. A great many angels have never sinned. However, the context is not talking about angels so not even you believe that all means all. It is clearly in teh context of all human beings in teh likeness of Adam.

You are still ignoring my point though (for obvious reasons). It all are made righteous as Rom 5 says, then no one goes to hell. How do you answer this? In what sense are "all made righteous" and if all are made righteous as you say, on what basis does God send anyone to hell??

 

Where was it decreed? (free will) In eternity past-- and to bring it into our time framework all we have to do is read John 3:16 . . . .

 

Romans 5:18 cannot mean a universalism as though all will finally be saved. He provided salvation for all, but immediately afterword says that only--- ' . . . many will be made righteous.' (vs. 19).

What makes a person among the elect is they either are 'justified' or never become 'justified' by God in Christ. (Romans 5:9).

The only thing in question is does God autocratically select or does man after the prompting of the Holy Spirit--chose Christ as personal Savior. (free will)

 

We know man's "free will" is limited because of the effect of the Fall on his nature.

(John 6:44 NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(Acts 13:48 NKJV) Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The limitations on man's ability and the freedom of God to appoint are upheld by these verses. Anyone can buck against these verses from now 'til Doomsday and they cannot be refuted(another human limitation )

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

And God draws all.

The word used for as had been appointed is a periphrastic phrase and can just as easily be translated as 'appointed themselves' as 'appointed to' according to the grammar rules.

They can and they have been. You just "choose" not to accept it.

Ken
Were it not for grace...[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Ray

The verses & responses you gave have been discussed over and over and we obviously disagree...and that is fine. I tried to bring up something I haven't seen discussed before but you chose to ignore it...possibly unintentionally...would you care to respond?

In His Grace
KayDee

 

No, He does not. If He did, then everyone who ever lives will be saved.

Only if you use the Jehovah Witnesses' translation.

Then present your evidence. I choose, due to regeneration, to believe God rather than men.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

There is an overwhelming block of evidence that shows that Christ died for all men. In the same logic that even though not all who Christ died for gets saved, not all who is drawn to him become saved.

How about this question? In Hebrews 6, it says that it is impossible for those "enlightened by the Holy Spirit" to be saved again - since you don't believe this is talking about those who can lose their salvation, how is it possible people are enlightened by the Holy Spirit yet not saved?

Or if you read the Greek for what it's worth.

 

If that is the case, then why has no one, no one, ever been able to refute the evidence for particular redemption in John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

If that is the case, then why has no one, no one, ever been able to refute the evidence for particular redemption in John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...</font>[/QUOTE]Have you read the book "Grace of God, Will of Man?" I would strongly suggest that you just haven't been reading the right materials! How about "The Day Christ Died" by Lightener?

Or this (although it doesn't mention Owen by name as the other two do): from http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/atone.htm

[ June 25, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

Thanks for the post, Scott.

It would appear that the author does not believe in the atonement of Christ as being substitutionary in nature. If Christ died as the substitute for a person, then that person cannot be lost. I believe that Christ was the substitute for the punishment of His people, and because of this, I must also believe in a limited extent of the atonement, as I read in the Bible.

Also, Calvinism does not state that God arbitrarily condemns anyone to hell. Man is condemned to hell by his own sin, as I read in the Bible.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

My suggestion is to quit hiding behind versions and translations and get busy reading what the Greek scholars say about verses in the New Testament. These are all laymen's answers and poor excuses for really studying what God is really saying.

 

Very well, Ray. You asked for this. I am now bringing out the heavy artillery. I just hope this is okay as it is rather lengthy but in order to be thorough in meeting your challenge I feel this is necessary.

"Acts 13:48

Well, this letter is more of a small book now, so I must hurry to the last topic I wished to address at this point. I will leave it to others to expand upon the many, many problems/errors/self-contradictions in your work, Dave. For now, I wish to close with the first passage I looked up in the solo copy of your work that lay upon your table at the PFO Conference in April: Acts 13:48, which is found on pp. 210-211. The text, as it is found in the NASB, reads,

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rather than quoting the entirety of the section, let me summarize your argument in the following points:

1) “ordained” is questionable reading

2) Many Greek scholars call it a wrong translation.

3) In none of the other uses in the NT does it refer to a decree from God

4) The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon does not give “ordain” or “foreordain” as a meaning of the term.

5) I Corinthians 16:15 in the KJV renders tassw as “addicted.”

6) “Many Greek experts” suggest the translation “disposed themselves to believe.”

7) Several authorities identify the KJV’s “wrong” rendering to the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate.

8) Dean Alford rendered it “disposed to eternal life believed.”

9) The Expositor’s Greek Testament says this is not about a divine decree.

10) A.T. Robertson said this passage does not decide the debate.

11) “Context” supports the rendering “disposed” rather than “ordained.”

The person wishing to see if this is a fair summary may consult the referenced pages. First, I note that you did not deal with the exegesis I offered in The Potter’s Freedom outside of simply mentioning the fact that I gave a list of the modern translations that render the passage “ordain” rather than any other translation. But you did not touch on the periphrastic construction that I explained on pages 188-189, nor did you mention the resultant tense meaning. But I shall bring this out as I respond to each point:

1) You say “ordained” is a questionable reading. In fact, you eventually say it is “wrong,” not just questionable. I think this should be well understood: the same man who said in a public address in my own hearing “I do not read Greek. It might as well be Chinese” has been able to determine that the vast majority of English translations have been duped, seemingly by the Latin Vulgate (point #7). When I say vast majority, I truly mean it. Let’s look at a list:

KJV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
NASB: and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed
NIV: and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
ASV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
ESV: and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
ISV: Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed.
NET: and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
NAB: All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.
NKJV: And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
NLT: and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.
NRSV: and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.
GNB: and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers
Jerus.: all who were destined for eternal life became believers.

Now, that’s a pretty impressive list. From the KJV to the ESV, the published translations of the English Bible done by teams of translators render the phrase with remarkable consistency. Are we to believe that they are all just slavishly following the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate? Or did Jerome know something, too?
I looked high and low for a published translation done by a team of scholars that renders the passage “disposed to eternal life.” I found “disposed” in a footnote in the Living Bible. You cited Alford’s commentary. But that was it. Then, one day, I found a published English Bible that reads exactly as you suggest, Dave. It was translated by a team alright, but they were not a team of scholars. You see, the only published English translation I have found that agrees with the “many” Greek scholars you claim are on your side is the following:

NWT: and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers

Yes, Dave, you have adopted the reading of the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The NWT! You reject the entirety of the published translations noted above, including the King James Version, and adopt the NWT’s reading! Amazing, utterly amazing, don’t you think? It would be humorous if it were not so serious: Dave Hunt identifying the work of all of Evangelicalism’s leading Bible translators as an error, and adopting instead the reading of the NWT.

2) You do not list these “scholars.” You did list some commentators who do not believe the verse speaks to eternal predestination (that is hardly surprising), but you do not provide us with the names of these scholars. Nor can you
do so. Greek scholars happen to know that this periphrastic construction has a pluperfect tense meaning. And that means the action of the construction preceded the act of believing. When you combine this with the actual meaning of the word (which you misrepresent, see below), there is a broad consensus as to the meaning: God appointed men to eternal life, and as a result, they believed. The action of appointing preceded the action of believing. That’s why your list of scholars is conspicuous by its absence, and why, I note, even those you do quote do not address the actual text or its meaning.

3) This is a classic error of hermeneutics and logic. The issue is not, “in the less than ten other uses of this verb in the New Testament does it refer to God’s eternal decree?” but “in this passage is it properly translated “ordained” or “appointed” so that the meaning of the passage makes reference to such a decree? The answer is clear.

4) There are two elements to your error at this point. First, Liddell and Scott is not a koine Greek lexicon. It is not a New Testament lexicon. I note you do not cite from the actual lexicons that deal with the New Testament, and that for good reason: they all contradict you! But choosing a lexicon that is not even specifically about koine Greek speaks volumes. But even louder than this error is the simple fact that you happen to have blown the assertion. Liddell and Scott do give “ordain” as the meaning of tassw in section III, number 2, “appoint, ordain, order, prescribe.” Even more devastating is the fact that the verbal form cited as being translated this way is almost identical to that in Acts 13:48 (tetagmena). Hence, you have not only chosen the wrong lexicon, you didn’t even get what it says correctly. It is yet another testimony against you.

5) Yes, the KJV does, but modern translations are much more accurate at this point, “and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.” In any case, the passage is only relevant for establishing a general semantic range for the term tassw. The passage, however, does not contain a periphrastic construction that parallels its use at Acts 13:48. There tassw is a simple aorist active. To make the passage relevant to the argument you are attempting to put forward, you would have to explain how an aorist verbal form in another author in a completely different context is relevant to the use in Acts 13:48. But there is more. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 the verb is active and has a direct object. Hence it was something the household of Stephanos did: they dedicated themselves to a particular task. But the perfect participle in Acts 13:48 is passive. This is something that was done to those who believed. You have to attempt to argue a middle voice for the participle, which is not only rare, but in this context, next to impossible to defend. In any case, you have not begun to provide a meaningful ground for your reference of this passage, and hence it must be rejected.

6) One Anglican divine does not equal “many Greek experts,” Dave, and given that Alford did not even attempt to deal with 1) Lukan usage (which, obviously, is the first sphere of interest to us: Acts 22:10 and 28:13 should be the first passages we examine, and both support the understanding of “appointed/ordained” not “disposed”; 2) the periphrastic construction and its resultant tense meaning, we have little basis for putting much stock in his comment. Yet, you said “many” and we only have one. You did cite a few others later on, but only their commentary and interpretation, not their discussion of the actual translation of the text. I can find “Greek scholars” who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel or who deny the resurrection of Christ. That is not the issue. The relevant question, obviously, is, “Do these ‘many’ Greek scholars deal with the actual textual issues at hand, such as Lukan usage, the periphrastic, the prevalence of the passive participle over a middle form, etc.? You do not cite any for us.

7) There is no question that both Erasmus, in his work on what would eventually become the Textus Receptus, and the King James translators themselves, were deeply influenced by the Latin Vulgate. I do have to wonder, Dave, if you would repeat this defense verbatim when speaking, for example, at Joseph Chambers’ church, a church that defends and supports Gail Riplinger and King James Onlyism? I know you are not fully KJV Only (though that comment you made at dinner about Sinaiticus seems to indicate you have strong leanings that direction: I hope you will refrain, in the future, from repeating the false idea that Sinaiticus was found in a trash can, which is manifestly untrue), but you seem to have inclinations toward the KJV, which makes this whole argument on Acts 13:48 rather problematic for you. Be that as it may, the meaning of the Greek periphrastic construction has not been determined by reference to the Latin Vulgate: instead, Jerome knew what you seemingly do not: that the underlying Greek plainly speaks of a divine action resulting in the belief of those so ordained.

8) See #6.

9) It surely does (I wonder if you likewise accept the viewpoints expressed in this source on such things as the “rapture” or millennial views?). However, it does so primarily as commentary, not as, noted above, exegesis. Indeed, this seems to be your primary source, hence, you seem to be following Rendall at this point. However, the criticism noted above is relevant here as well, for the only passage cited is non-Lukan and in a very dissimilar context.

10) Yes, Robertson did not interpret the passage as deciding the issue, but, you will note, he did not mistranslate it nor would he support your assertion that ordained is a “wrong” rendering: he says it is not best, but adopts “appointed” instead (not “disposed”). Again, however, you have muddied the waters by confusing a Greek grammarian’s theological interpretations with a Greek grammarians comments on the grammar and syntax of a passage. Robertson says Luke does not tell us why these Gentiles “ranged” themselves on God’s side. I think it is clear that it does, and when we realize that no one, outside of God’s grace, chooses God over evil, the answer is ever clearer. But again, you misuse Robertson’s commentary as if it is a matter of Greek translation: it is not. The only relevance would be toward your use of the context argument, not in support of your assertion that there is some great conflict over the actual translation of tassw here. There isn’t.

11) The only point in which your argument has any kind of even minority support is in your assertion that the context in some way ameliorates the strong statement of divine sovereignty by reference to the disposition of the Jews. Specifically, that since the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (13:46), this provides the “mirror” so to speak in which to view the meaning of tassw. But there are at least two compelling reasons why the attempted explanation fails: 1) no reason exists to see such a parallel in the language. Luke does not use tassw in 13:46, which would have provided a perfect parallel, the Jews not being “disposed” and the Gentiles being “disposed,” but instead Luke uses completely different words, indicating no parallel in his thinking, and 2) there is no such thing as a person who is “disposed” to eternal life in the first place. As I have already noted, Dave, the very idea that you believe that there are people who are “disposed” to eternal life, aside from being utterly unbiblical, likewise lands you in the middle of having to answer the question, “So why was Dave Hunt disposed to eternal life and someone else was not?” You are still left teaching that some people are better than others, and the reason why one believes and another does not is found in the person and not in God.

Acts 13:48 teaches the divine sovereignty of God over men in the matter of faith and salvation, Dave. Your attempts to get around this have failed. But, hopefully, many will be blessed by the demonstration of your error, at the very least. I do hope you will cease to fight against this truth, and will come to accept it."

This is from Dr. James White's letter to Dave Hunt in response to his new book attacking the Biblical doctrines of grace. The letter in its entirety can be found at www.aomin.org.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...