"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

[JonC]

Wait a minute, was there not a whole thread a while back where you were arguing against Substitutionary Atonement?

No. I was arguing against Penal Substituton Theory and that as the primary view. for all text.

In every thread I affirmed substitutionary atonement (I said that the word "atonement" itself implies not only substitution but penal substitution). In fact, not only did I affirm substitution but I affirmed penal substitution (I agreed with MartinM that his definition of Penal Substitution was, in fact, biblidcal). We disagreed after that.

@davidtaylorjr , here is the thing - I do not necessarily reject Penal Substitution. Let's take the basic definitions of these theories.

Here is how @Martin Marprelate defined it (I think from Pierce for Our Transgressions, but am not sure):

“The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin”.

I have no issue at all with that definition. That is what I believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

The problem with that idea (that words are REDEFINED by the Holy Spirit's use) is that it ignores the original audience alltogether.

It is the definition of biblical illiteracy. One's theology says something so they define words based on what their theology teaches them Scripture is speaking of. It is eisegesis, period.

If your theology disagrees with Scripture then redefine your theology NOT Scripture.

Sorry JonC...God as creator defines every created fact .He alone gives meaning to truth, sin,propitiation and every other revealed truth.
This is taught clearly all through scripture

2tim3:16, 1 cor2, psalm 119 etc.

 

[The Archangel]

Moronic. Christ died only for mankind, and is understood to have only done such.

Not at all...

Your argument is: "The fact remains that mankind is a subset in the universe. So as the term is used in the NT, one can get away with the argument that none of the usages disallow the meaning of that Greek term in the NT to mean mankind. Because mankind is a subset of the universe." (Source)

What you are doing here is insisting that you--as the reader--get to choose the meaning of any given word within its semantic range, rather than take the author's meaning as determined by grammar, context, etc.

Your argument is that mankind is a "subset" of kosmos and, as such, is included in the semantic range of the word. Mankind is indeed within the semantic range of kosmos but it is not because mankind is a subset of universe; it is because mankind is one possible meaning of kosmos. But, if you argue--as you have--that mankind is a possible translation in every case you determine to be proper because mankind is a subset of universe, then the possibilities of meaning are endless since literally everything in the created order could be argued to be a subset of universe. Therefore, your "subset" argument is invalid.

The author--John, in this case--is the one who decides what meaning is. It is our task to understand what John is conveying. John's use of grammar and context is more a determiner of his meaning of kosmos than the lexicon. In John 21:25 it is quite clear to nearly everyone that he is referring to the world, not to mankind.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Sorry JonC...God as creator defines every created fact .He alone gives meaning to truth, sin,propitiation and every other revealed truth.
This is taught clearly all through scripture

2tim3:16, 1 cor2, psalm 119 etc.

Sorry, Iconoclast, but you and your eisegesis (by definition)are wrong.

The problem with subjective interpretation (redefining words based on one's theology) is people can and do make words mean anything that suits them.

Scripture is God's revelation to man about God. It is God communicating to man. You may believe that the Holy Spirit redefined words so that no one but the initiated could understand them, but how is this any different from a cult?

Why do you believe that God would have an author use a word common to the people, yet give the word an entirely different meaning? What do you think it would communicate? '

For example (illustration) - Scripture states that Jesus is God. If you say that the Holy Spirit meant as "a god" then you've become a heretic. But your system of redefining words allows for this type of thing where legitimate interpretation does not.

 

[The Archangel]

It's plainly obvious that you don't know what the Greek grammar was 2000 years ago. Just curious do you always talk like you know it all? Must bve a complex of some kind.
MB

In what way is it "plainly obvious?" If I've goofed in my Greek grammar, you're free to point it out--if you know Greek. If you don't, however, you don't have a way to even adjudicate what I'm saying, other than to resort to the liar-liar-pants-on-fire when you disagree.

As for the other drivel you've posted here in this post, it adds nothing to the conversation--except to attack me personally, which doesn't deserve a response other than to say having a level of expertise (though certainly not the highest of levels) does not a "complex" make.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

In what way is it "plainly obvious?" If I've goofed in my Greek grammar, you're free to point it out--if you know Greek. If you don't, however, you don't have a way to even adjudicate what I'm saying, other than to resort to the liar-liar-pants-on-fire when you disagree.

As for the other drivel you've posted here in this post, it adds nothing to the conversation--except to attack me personally, which doesn't deserve a response other than to say having a level of expertise (though certainly not the highest of levels) does not a "complex" make.

The Archangel

I don't like it when people use "plainly obvious" because what follows is typically anything but (it's usually a way of trying to get the other guy to back down).

Given the comment "2000 years ago" MB may just be pointing out the fact that we cannot be completely certain about how the language was used at that time so we need to be careful not to get dogmatic about the grammer.

(I have not followed your conversation with MB, so that is the only part I'm addressing....I just noticed the comment)

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave ,

How one views the issue depends on the philosophy employed. Both views existed for a long time within Calvinism and it is fair to say the view Christ was the propitiation for all sin without exception was there from the beginning of Calvinism as this was John Calvin's position. Both views may have been there (which may explain why Calvin felt it necessary to add "without exception").

It depends on "logical order" (which is not the order of decrees but the order we consider these decrees).

If I believe that God chose a people out of fallen man, then there is no issue with Christ as the propitiation for all human sin (both your view and my view can fit here). If, however, I believe that Creation is post-election (in order) logic would dictate your position without room for mine.

You still have an atonement that does not deal with any sin. If it is supposed to pay for sin (the sin of rejecting Christ included), and is meant for all, it pays for no sin at all since most perish.

 

[1689Dave]

I am not an evangelical universalist. I am a Calvinist.

According to pre-Beza Calvinism Christ died for the sin of mankind without exception. By the early seventh century there had developed two primary views (depending on one's philosophical approach to Scripture).

Neither logically concluded with universal salvation. The "straw-man" is a result of taking the view that Christ died for the sin of mankind and placing it within the understanding that the Atonement was a business-type transaction. It is easy to say the logical conclusion is universalism if one does this, but it is not being honest to the views.

It doesn't matter what you are. If the atonement pays for the sins of all, and nearly all perish, it doesn't pay for sin.

 

[JonC]

You still have an atonement that does not deal with any sin. If it is supposed to pay for sin (the sin of rejecting Christ included), and is meant for all, it pays for no sin at all since most perish.

No. I have an atonement that deals with ALL sin.

The difference is in how one considers the Cross. Was it a business transaction or something else (in type)...perhaps something more that appeases the Father's wrath yet people remain in their sin aoart from Christ (Judgment is given to Christ)

 

[1689Dave]

No. I have an atonement that deals with ALL sin.

The difference is in how one considers the Cross. Was it a business transaction or something else (in type)...perhaps something more that appeases the Father's wrath yet people remain in their sin aoart from Christ (Judgment is given to Christ)

All sin except.....? What sin not atoned for keeps Christ for saving all?

 

[JonC]

It doesn't matter what you are. If the atonement pays for the sins of all, and nearly all perish, it doesn't pay for sin.

It doesn't and that would be an interesting thread (perhaps explain other views and prevent others from making the same error).

 

[JonC]

All sin except.....? What sin not atoned for keeps Christ for saving all?

All sin except none.

 

[1689Dave]

All sin except none.

Really? So election saves, not Christ's blood?

 

[JonC]

Really? So election saves, not Christ's blood?

That is a strange conclusion. I almost want to know your reasoning, but I suppose the answer wouldn't matter and would just be a tangent.

We are purchased with the blood of Christ. What does Scripture say "saves" us? Blood? Not exactly. Election? Not exactly. Think about it before responding.

What element, action, or decision does the Bible pull apart from the salvation of man (from God"s grace) to offer as the thing that "saves us" in and of itself?

 

[HankD]

The most obvious difficulty with identifying with a human name is that some seem to have the need to make sure their leader gets the credit for the souls that were saved.

yes its understandable but not right.

 

[JonC]

The most obvious difficulty with identifying with a human name is that some seem to have the need to make sure their leader gets the credit for the souls that were saved.

yes its understandable but not right.

I've been discouraging people from calling themselves "Joncists" much of my life.

 

[1689Dave]

That is a strange conclusion. I almost want to know your reasoning, but I suppose the answer wouldn't matter and would just be a tangent.

We are purchased with the blood of Christ. What does Scripture say "saves" us? Blood? Not exactly. Election? Not exactly. Think about it before responding.

What element, action, or decision does the Bible pull apart from the salvation of man (from God"s grace) to offer as the thing that "saves us" in and of itself?

Jesus' blood is the basis for salvation. Not election or anything else. If so he died in vain.

 

[JonC]

Jesus' blood is the basis for salvation. Not election or anything else. If so he died in vain.

Exactly!!!! The basis. But what single part of salvation saves apart from the rest (per Scripture)? Is it the blood? Is it faith? Repentance? Belief? Divine obedience? Rebirth (from above), forgiveness?

The failure of your treatment of the "other view" is an unbiblical view of Salvation accomplished as a business type transaction at the Cross isolated from the whole of salvation as offered in Scripture.

The answer is that salvation is the complete work of God from start to finish. Men are always wrong to pull it apart as if God took the "long way around".

The fact is Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world in toto necessitates neither universal salvation nor sins for which Christ did not die. The "other view" looks to all judgment being given the Son. That is really the primary difference.

 

[37818]

Not at all...

Your argument is: "The fact remains that mankind is a subset in the universe. So as the term is used in the NT, one can get away with the argument that none of the usages disallow the meaning of that Greek term in the NT to mean mankind. Because mankind is a subset of the universe." (Source)

What you are doing here is insisting that you--as the reader--get to choose the meaning of any given word within its semantic range, rather than take the author's meaning as determined by grammar, context, etc.

Your argument is that mankind is a "subset" of kosmos and, as such, is included in the semantic range of the word. Mankind is indeed within the semantic range of kosmos but it is not because mankind is a subset of universe; it is because mankind is one possible meaning of kosmos. But, if you argue--as you have--that mankind is a possible translation in every case you determine to be proper because mankind is a subset of universe, then the possibilities of meaning are endless since literally everything in the created order could be argued to be a subset of universe. Therefore, your "subset" argument is invalid.

The author--John, in this case--is the one who decides what meaning is. It is our task to understand what John is conveying. John's use of grammar and context is more a determiner of his meaning of kosmos than the lexicon. In John 21:25 it is quite clear to nearly everyone that he is referring to the world, not to mankind.

The Archangel

No. I was explaining my thinking as to why the interpretation, that Greek word translated "world" can be understood throughout the NT, understood to refer to "mankind," the human race. I am not expecting you to agree.

It seems explicit to me that meaning can be understood in such references as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.

 

[HankD]

I've been discouraging people from calling themselves "Joncists" much of my life.

Good that's some progress, you are on my prayer list.