Overcoming

[Martin Marprelate]

That brings me to Murray. I’m familiar with his argument, but notice what he’s doing: he is not showing limiting language in verse 9. He is inferring a limitation from verses 10–13.

He's not 'inferring' anything. He's showing the meaning from the context, which, frankly, is pretty obvious..

 

[Ascetic X]

Try not to be silly.
What possible possible help is it to tell someone that the Lord Jesus died for everyone's sins? What possible encouragement is that to anybody to repent?

Silly? This is your view of contrasting Jesus dying for everyone vs. Jesus dying only for the elect?

Jesus dying for everyone’s sins is the classic message of evangelism. What possible encouragement is it to lead a person to repent? It should be a huge encouragement to any sinner. But you were not receptive to the gospel message at that time. You had to be scared of God’s wrath first, as you stated.

What possible encouragement is it to say, Calvinistically, “If you accept Jesus as Lord, then He died for your sins. But if you reject Jesus as Lord, then He did not die for your sins” —???

This actually is the Calvinist theology. It states the Doctrine of Limited Grace — that Jesus died only for the elect.

When I was an unsaved youngster at University, members of the Christian Union were always diligent to tell me that Jesus really loved me and died for my sins. I was always happy to hear it, but it never made me want to become a Christian.

Your heart was hardened against the blessed truth that Jesus died for your sins, but thank God, you eventually accepted the gospel message.

Perhaps the death of Jesus for the sins of humanity is just a remote, abstract concept to some people.

Even the threat of God’s wrath and eternal torment in hell can be brushed aside by unbelievers.

It was not until about 20 years later that I came to understand that I was a sinner, justly under the wrath of God and repented and trusted in Christ as a drowning man in a stormy sea might put his trust in a lifebelt thrown to him.

The Scriptures say that Christ died for sinners. Romans 4:25 & 5:6ff come to mind instantly,

Yes, scripture says Christ died for sinners, all of them, with no exception. So that whoever will, may come.


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.

 

[JonC]

Martin, thank you, and safe travels on your holiday. A quick clarification on the Greek: you’re right that “man” isn’t in the text. The phrase is simply panta (“every” or “everything”). But that actually strengthens my point. If the writer intended “every son,” “every child,” or “every brother,” he could have said so. He didn’t. He used the unqualified panta. The question is whether the context later restricts that scope.

That brings me to Murray. I’m familiar with his argument, but notice what he’s doing: he is not showing limiting language in verse 9. He is inferring a limitation from verses 10–13. That is a theological deduction, not a grammatical one. Nothing in verses 10–13 says that Christ tasted death only for the sons, or only for the brethren, or only for the children given Him. Those verses describe the purpose and result of His suffering, not the scope of the death He tasted.

This is the distinction I’m pressing: describing the beneficiaries of salvation is not the same thing as redefining the scope of the death in verse 9. If the writer intended “Christ tasted death for every one of the sons,” the limiting words would appear in verse 9 or be supplied explicitly. They aren’t. Murray’s conclusion may be theologically coherent, but it is not textually demonstrated.

As for John 8:51, that’s a different category. “Shall never see death” refers to the life granted to believers, not to the scope of the atonement. If we collapse those categories, we end up saying Christ only died for believers because only believers receive eternal life — which is precisely the point under debate. Using the result to define the scope is circular.

My request remains simple: if verses 10–13 restrict the meaning of panta in verse 9, show the actual limiting words. Otherwise we’re not exegeting the text; we’re harmonizing it with a system.

As you read theological development you will find that most of the distinctions in modern theologies (like Calvinism and Arminianism) are theological/ philosophical deductions rather than based on the biblical text (grammer, definitions, the actual words).

This is to be expected because most assume their philosophy is God's philosophy (they do not rely on the biblical text but a version of the text through a humanistic lens).

Calvinism is, at its core (a historical distinction from other views) PSA and perhaps a purely symbolic view of the Lord's Supper.

Murray assumed PSA is correct. It is not his logic that is flawed but his theological deductions based on the assumed philosophy.


Think about it. Calvinists read "He bore our sins" but read substitution. There are no words in that text that can be interpreted as "substitution". They see "atonement" (literally "cover" in the OT and "reconcile" in the NT but they see "life for life".

It is hard for men to accept the biblical text - perhaps even harder today given the influences inherent in Western Christianity (from the RCC, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists who share a common philosophy.


But ask - what does "bearing" something really mean? Does the word itself mean "substitution"? Of course not. So why do people read that philosophy into the text? They simply do not realize they are. They failed to identify their own worldview and presuppositions so it is impossible that they read God's words without adding to the text.



In the 20th century a Calvinistic sect, led by Daniel Parker, advocated the anti-missions movement. His logic was not flawed. His philosophy was very flawed.