Overcoming

[Martin Marprelate]

So my request remains simple: point to the actual phrase in verses 10–13 that limits the scope of verse 9. If it’s “pretty obvious,” it should be easy to quote.

Do I really have to type them out again?
OK. In verse 10, we have the 'many sons' brought to glory. Tht is a limitation of 'tasting death for everyone.
In verse 11, He calls the ones He died for 'brethren' whom He has sanctified
In verse 13, here He is with the children whom God has given Him, not one of whom will ever be lost (John 6:39). I really don't know what more you want.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This has nothing to do with atonement.

It is talking about those who respond to the gospel and accept the atonement.

At the point of our Lord speaking, it has nothing at all to do with anyone responding. Just look again at the text, and its very plain, obvious meaning. The Father has given to the Son a people to redeem, and that is what He will do; not one will be lost. He says the same thing in John 17:2, 6 & 24, not to mention 18:9.
Also, as I wrote earlier, Look at Matthew 11:25ff. The Father has hidden the Gospel from the 'wise and prudent' and revealed it to babes. "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.' Our Lord goes on to tell us that none knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son wills (chooses) to reveal Him. But then the Lord Jesus freely offers Himself to anyone who will receive Him (vs. 28-30). Does there seem to be a paradox to our finite minds? No doubt; the reason being that we are not as smart as God is. A reading of Isaiah 55:8-9 and Romans 11:33-36 is very good for the promoting of humility in the heart.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Two very quick points before I get back to my holiday: firstly, the words 'the sins of' do not appear in any Greek manuscript, and secondly, if God is propitiated in respect of the sins of every person who ever lived in all the wide world, then all those people will be saved because God's wrath has been propitiated. BUt we know that is not the case, because, '... He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him' (John 3:36).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Well, in the previous post I point out that you are interpreting a little on your own. I'm not criticizing you but pointing out that we all do that and it is impossible to get any meaning out of scripture unless we do so. What the truth amounts to here is that what you really mean is that the quoted theologians don't agree with you, and the idea of an error in quoting them is really nothing more than that they reinforce ideas you don't like. Which is in fact what we all do. Except I might add, those who because of this erroneous idea that something is more valid if you think it up yourself - end up going out in strange and novel directions like you with this idea of the book of life and Jon with his atonement.

Dave, I think you may be reading more into my comments than I intended. My point about Revelation 17:8 was simply that the verse describes the final state of those who perish. It does not address the historical operation of the Book of Life any more than Revelation 20:15 does. The text says their names were not written “from the foundation of the world,” and I agree with that. But that statement about God’s foreknowledge does not settle the question of how the warnings and promises in passages like Revelation 3:5 function within human history.

Regarding Revelation 3:5, the language is straightforward: “I will not blot out his name.” The verb “blot out” is used consistently in Scripture to describe removal (Exodus 32:33; Psalm 69:28). Whether one reads Christ’s words as encouragement or warning, the text itself still presents a real category of blotting out. My point was simply that the promise has meaning because the category exists. That is not a novel interpretation; it is the plain sense of the language.

As for theologians, I have no objection to citing them. My only concern is that the authority in any discussion remains the text itself. Every interpreter, Calvinist or otherwise, must still show that his reading fits the passage. That is all I was saying.

I’m not trying to claim that I alone “just follow Scripture.” I’m saying that every system, including mine and yours, must be tested by the words of the text. That’s the only ground we share.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Well, in the previous post I point out that you are interpreting a little on your own. I'm not criticizing you but pointing out that we all do that and it is impossible to get any meaning out of scripture unless we do so. What the truth amounts to here is that what you really mean is that the quoted theologians don't agree with you, and the idea of an error in quoting them is really nothing more than that they reinforce ideas you don't like. Which is in fact what we all do. Except I might add, those who because of this erroneous idea that something is more valid if you think it up yourself - end up going out in strange and novel directions like you with this idea of the book of life and Jon with his atonement.

Dave, I think we may be talking past each other a bit. My point about Revelation 17:8 was simply that the verse describes the final state of those who perish. It tells us that their names were not written “from the foundation of the world,” and I agree with that. But that statement about God’s foreknowledge does not address how the Book of Life operates within human history, nor does it settle the meaning of passages that speak of blotting out.

Scripture uses the language of removal plainly: “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Exodus 32:33). “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living” (Psalm 69:28). And in Revelation 3:5, Christ Himself says, “I will not blot out his name.” The category exists because the language exists. Whether one reads Revelation 3:5 as encouragement or warning, the text still presents a real category of blotting out. My point was simply that the promise has meaning because the category is real.

As for interpretation, I agree that everyone interprets. My concern is only that the authority in any discussion remains the text itself. A theologian may be helpful, but his interpretation still has to fit the passage. That is all I was saying. I am not claiming that I alone “just follow Scripture”; I am saying that every system, including mine and yours, must be tested by the words of the text.

Regarding Acts 13:48, I have no issue with the verse. It says exactly what it says. The question is not whether the text is true, but how the terms are being understood. “Ordained” is a legitimate translation, but it is not the only one, and the grammar allows for more than one reading. That is not an attempt to escape the verse; it is simply acknowledging that translation and interpretation are part of the process for all of us.

My only aim here is to keep the discussion anchored in the passages themselves. That is the ground we share.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Do I really have to type them out again?
OK. In verse 10, we have the 'many sons' brought to glory. Tht is a limitation of 'tasting death for everyone.
In verse 11, He calls the ones He died for 'brethren' whom He has sanctified
In verse 13, here He is with the children whom God has given Him, not one of whom will ever be lost (John 6:39). I really don't know what more you want.

Martin, I appreciate the effort, but you still haven’t pointed to any limiting language in verses 10–13. You’ve listed descriptions of the sons, the brethren, and the children, and I agree those verses describe the people Christ brings to glory. But descriptions of the saved are not limitations on the scope of verse 9.

Verse 9 says He tasted death “for every man.” Verses 10–13 describe the purpose and result of His suffering in those who are saved. Nothing in verses 10–13 changes the wording of verse 9 or narrows it.

To show a limitation, you would need a phrase that redefines “every man”, something like “only,” “these,” “not those,” or any explicit restriction. But the verses simply don’t contain that. They describe the sons He brings to glory, the brethren He sanctifies, and the children given to Him. Those are wonderful truths, but they do not modify the scope of verse 9.

So my request remains the same: If the scope of verse 9 is limited, the limiting words must appear in the text. Descriptions of the saved are not limitations on the scope.

 

[Ascetic X]

At the point of what our Lord is saying, it has nothing at all to do with anyone responding. Just look again at the text, and its very plain, obvious meaning. The Father has given to the Son a people to redeem, and that is what He will do; not one will be lost.

I see in this John 6:37 verse the favorable response of people to Jesus.

The phrase “shall come to me” signifies a positive, salvific responding. Those who do not come to Jesus are not responding, they ignore or reject Him.

Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, but some humans will not respond to Him, they refuse to come to Him.

Contrary to Calvinist teaching, it nowhere says that Christ will die only for those who come to
Him. It says that those who come to Jesus were given to Jesus by the Father and they will not be cast out.


John 6:37

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.



Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[DaveXR650]

The question is not whether the text is true, but how the terms are being understood. “Ordained” is a legitimate translation, but it is not the only one, and the grammar allows for more than one reading. That is not an attempt to escape the verse; it is simply acknowledging that translation and interpretation are part of the process for all of us.

I just think that this is exactly what you are criticizing Calvinist theologians for doing. The fact is we all do this and must do this.

Scripture uses the language of removal plainly: “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Exodus 32:33). “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living” (Psalm 69:28). And in Revelation 3:5, Christ Himself says, “I will not blot out his name.” The category exists because the language exists. Whether one reads Revelation 3:5 as encouragement or warning, the text still presents a real category of blotting out. My point was simply that the promise has meaning because the category is real.

And again. The use in Exodus could be said not to be referring to the Lamb's book of life but to those listed as covenant members the gathered people of Israel in the context. But whatever it is, it requires that you interpret the passage, as you have done. In Revelation the simple scripture state that "I will not blot out the name of those who overcome". Using a strict limitation of exegesis, as you guys claim to do, you have no right to assume that some are indeed going to be blotted out. That goes too far and is exactly equivalent to what you accuse Calvinist theologians doing. In addition, it appears indeed, if I now have permission to use logic and interpretation - that the book of life in Revelation is the same one from the foundation of the world and you have Revelation 17:8 clearly stating that their names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world - not that they were removed.

Now, you and @Ascetic X went on and on about me not delving into these scriptures even after I tried to explain that I had never really looked at them and didn't think it was warranted - but you kept challenging. Now I have and frankly have found your argument even weaker than I thought. In addition, if anything, it is a pretty good argument if not for absolute determinism, at least for a set and final form of previous infallible knowledge that even if viewed as only "foreknowledge" brings up all the issues of Calvinistic determinism making much more sense than God having to respond constantly to what it is we do and then in response to us and depending on us - go from there.