Overcoming

[Anthony Pritchard]

I showed the context in an earlier post.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.[Hebrews 2:10-13]

As you can see, vss 10-13 clarifies who the “every man” is.

You don’t need to run from this. I’m not asking you to defend a system or a conclusion, I’m asking you to deal with the wording of Hebrews 2:9 itself. The verse says Christ tasted death “for every man.” If you believe that means “every elect man,” then simply show that from the passage. That’s all.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes, teachings of men have reached me, but I am persuaded by scriptures, not theology.

For example. If the Bible says “for the sins of the whole world”, then a theologian claims this means “only for the sins of the elect”, I go with the scriptures rather than the theologian.

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.

And here is where you have to dig into scripture to get the gold contained in it. What exactly is propitiation and what does it actually accomplish?

From Bill Mounce’s website:

ἱλασμός hilasmos​

Gloss
atoning sacrifice, the means of forgiveness; traditionally propitiation
Definition
atoning sacrifice, sin offering, propitiation, expiation; one who makes propitiation/expiation, 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10*

I‘ve also seen appeasement(Bible Hub), satisfaction, being used as a descriptor of that word. It means that propitiation appeases, satisfies, placates, the Father’s wrath. If this propitiation was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately is no longer under the wrath of God. Meaning, in the day of judgment, there is no wrath to be meted out.

Also notice it means expiation, the removal of one’s guilt from them. If this was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately has had their guilt removed from them.

So, if what you say is true, many will reside eternally in the lake of fire who have had 1) their sin debt paid in full and 2) their guilt removed from them. I say anathema to such teaching(s).

 

[SovereignGrace]

You don’t need to run from this. I’m not asking you to defend a system or a conclusion, I’m asking you to deal with the wording of Hebrews 2:9 itself. The verse says Christ tasted death “for every man.” If you believe that means “every elect man,” then simply show that from the passage. That’s all.

What do you mean?!?!? I’m not running away from it, I showed you vss 10-13 clarifies who the “every man” in vs 9 are.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What do you mean?!?!? I’m not running away from it, I showed you vss 10-13 clarifies who the “every man” in vs 9 are.

Sovereigngrace, you didn’t actually show that verses 10–13 redefine “every man” in verse 9. You asserted it, but you didn’t demonstrate it. Nothing in verses 10–13 changes the wording of verse 9 or limits it. They describe the purpose and result of Christ’s suffering for the sons He brings to glory, but they do not say He only tasted death for those sons.

The grammar is simple: verse 9 states the scope (“every man”), and verses 10–13 describe the goal of His suffering. That is not a limitation clause. If you believe verses 10–13 restrict the meaning of “every man,” then show the actual words in the text that do so. Point to the phrase that narrows it. That’s all I’m asking.

Appealing to later verses without demonstrating how they redefine the earlier wording is not exegesis. It’s assumption. I’m asking for the textual basis for your claim, not a restatement of it.

 

[Ascetic X]

And here is where you have to dig into scripture to get the gold contained in it. What exactly is propitiation and what does it actually accomplish?

From Bill Mounce’s website:

ἱλασμός hilasmos​

Gloss
atoning sacrifice, the means of forgiveness; traditionally propitiation
Definition
atoning sacrifice, sin offering, propitiation, expiation; one who makes propitiation/expiation, 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10*

I‘ve also seen appeasement(Bible Hub), satisfaction, being used as a descriptor of that word. It means that propitiation appeases, satisfies, placates, the Father’s wrath. If this propitiation was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately is no longer under the wrath of God. Meaning, in the day of judgment, there is no wrath to be meted out.

Also notice it means expiation, the removal of one’s guilt from them. If this was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately has had their guilt removed from them.

So, if what you say is true, many will reside eternally in the lake of fire who have had 1) their sin debt paid in full and 2) their guilt removed from them. I say anathema to such teaching(s).

Again, you run away from the scripture verse


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.


…then you change the subject to talk about technical definitions of propitiation, and conclude with false assumptions and erroneous conclusions.

Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, but each individual in that world has to accept the gift of remission of sins and receive eternal life. Their sins were paid for, but if a sinner rejects this payment, God will not credit them with righteousness.

No sinner will be able to say on the day of judgment, “Jesus did not die for my sins, He died for the sins of the elect only, so I had no choice but to die in my sins.”

 

[SovereignGrace]

We are at an impasse. Good night my friends.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And here is where you have to dig into scripture to get the gold contained in it. What exactly is propitiation and what does it actually accomplish?

From Bill Mounce’s website:

ἱλασμός hilasmos​

Gloss
atoning sacrifice, the means of forgiveness; traditionally propitiation
Definition
atoning sacrifice, sin offering, propitiation, expiation; one who makes propitiation/expiation, 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10*

I‘ve also seen appeasement(Bible Hub), satisfaction, being used as a descriptor of that word. It means that propitiation appeases, satisfies, placates, the Father’s wrath. If this propitiation was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately is no longer under the wrath of God. Meaning, in the day of judgment, there is no wrath to be meted out.

Also notice it means expiation, the removal of one’s guilt from them. If this was for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately has had their guilt removed from them.

So, if what you say is true, many will reside eternally in the lake of fire who have had 1) their sin debt paid in full and 2) their guilt removed from them. I say anathema to such teaching(s).

Sovereigngrace, you didn’t actually exegete 1 John 2:2. You imported a theological definition of propitiation and then used that definition to override the plain wording of the verse. That’s not exegesis; that’s system-driven interpretation.

Nothing in 1 John 2:2 says that propitiation automatically removes wrath for every individual for whom it is made. That is a theological conclusion, not a textual statement. John’s point is contrast, not limitation: “not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” The structure is Jewish believers vs. the rest of humanity, not elect vs. non-elect.

If you believe “whole world” means “elect,” then the burden is to show that from the text itself, not from a theological consequence you believe must follow. The verse does not redefine “world,” and it does not say propitiation equals automatic salvation. Those are assumptions brought to the text, not drawn from it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Again, you run away from the scripture verse

If that helps you sleep better tonight…

 

[DaveXR650]

Shouldn’t we as Christians be more focused on proclaiming Bible truths, rather than cheering for a man-made theological system?

Definitely. Which is why the Puritan writings have no more than 1% of their volume devoted to these issues. The rest is how to become and then live as a Christian. But this is a theology site and I certainly hope this isn't all you do.

I am not arguing for Pelagianism, Free‑Will Baptist theology, or compatibilism. I am simply reading what the passage says.

I think it is legit if what you say fits those things, on a theology site, to point that out.

You are asking me to explain how God can know the final version of the Book of Life while also issuing real warnings. But that question only arises if one begins with a system that cannot accommodate the plain sense of the passage. I am not required to reconcile the text with a framework the text does not teach.

Absolutely. You are not required to reconcile anything. But you are if you are going to come on and presume to challenge someone's theology. You probably should stick to doing the imperatives stated in scripture and that's fine. I just don't understand why you would come on there then and take on 500 years of theologians. All you need to do is repent of your sins and believe the gospel. But the Calvinists say that too. Why do you get into these discussions and then claim it's useless to get into these discussions.

In all seriousness, I don't think further discussion is worth doing. You guys can carry on.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sovereigngrace, you didn’t actually exegete 1 John 2:2. You imported a theological definition of propitiation and then used that definition to override the plain wording of the verse. That’s not exegesis; that’s system-driven interpretation.

Nothing in 1 John 2:2 says that propitiation automatically removes wrath for every individual for whom it is made. That is a theological conclusion, not a textual statement. John’s point is contrast, not limitation: “not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” The structure is Jewish believers vs. the rest of humanity, not elect vs. non-elect.

If you believe “whole world” means “elect,” then the burden is to show that from the text itself, not from a theological consequence you believe must follow. The verse does not redefine “world,” and it does not say propitiation equals automatic salvation. Those are assumptions brought to the text, not drawn from it.

Sure I exegeted that verse, you just don't like how I did it. Look at the word "propitiation" for instance. How many times have you used that in a sentence that is not bible related? I do not think I've ever used that word outside theological discussions. I'd venture to guess that many true believers do not know what all that word entails. They just see whole world and automatically think everybody without exception. I explained the meaning of the word and its implications.

Propitiation means to appease, to satisfy, to placate, God's wrath, and to make atonement for sin. Expiation also comes along for the ride as well. Jesus' death actually did all this for us. It made an actual payment for His elect's sins, sins they could never atone for themselves.

It would be like someone going to a remote place in Africa and telling them about hot dog sauce. They would have no idea what that is, and would not even know what a hot dog is. They would have to explain to them or give them some to taste. I know that is a little far fetched, but what I mean it is not good enough to give ppl words contained in scripture, but to explain to them what they mean. It is not good enough to posit verses without explaining them. And that is what your side of the debate does. Posits the verses and expect us to swallow them hook, line, and sinker, without explanation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Sure I exegeted that verse, you just don't like how I did it. Look at the word "propitiation" for instance. How many times have you used that in a sentence that is not bible related? I do not think I've ever used that word outside theological discussions. I'd venture to guess that many true believers do not know what all that word entails. They just see whole world and automatically think everybody without exception. I explained the meaning of the word and its implications.

Propitiation means to appease, to satisfy, to placate, God's wrath, and to make atonement for sin. Expiation also comes along for the ride as well. Jesus' death actually did all this for us. It made an actual payment for His elect's sins, sins they could never atone for themselves.

It would be like someone going to a remote place in Africa and telling them about hot dog sauce. They would have no idea what that is, and would not even know what a hot dog is. They would have to explain to them or give them some to taste. I know that is a little far fetched, but what I mean it is not good enough to give ppl words contained in scripture, but to explain to them what they mean. It is not good enough to posit verses without explaining them. And that is what your side of the debate does. Posits the verses and expect us to swallow them hook, line, and sinker, without explanation.

Sovereigngrace, defining a word is not the same thing as exegeting a verse. Word studies are useful, but they are only one component of exegesis. Exegesis deals with the structure, grammar, and flow of the text itself. That is the part you still have not addressed.

You keep returning to the definition of propitiation, but 1 John 2:2 does not say that propitiation automatically removes wrath for every individual for whom it is made. That is a theological conclusion, not a textual statement. John is not explaining the mechanics of atonement in this verse; he is making a contrast: “not for ours only, but also for the whole world.”

That contrast is the key to the verse. “Ours” refers to the immediate community of Jewish believers John is writing to. “Whole world” is the standard Jewish way of referring to the rest of humanity. John uses this same pattern repeatedly in his writings. You have not shown from the text itself that “world” here means “elect.” You have only asserted it because your system requires it.

If you believe “world” means “elect,” then the burden is to demonstrate that from the grammar, context, and authorial usage, not from theological consequences you think must follow. The verse does not redefine “world,” and it does not say that propitiation equals automatic salvation. Those are assumptions brought to the text, not drawn from it.

Explaining the meaning of a word is fine, but it does not answer the exegetical question. The structure of the verse still stands as written: a contrast between “ours” and “the whole world.” Until that contrast is dealt with from the text itself, the interpretation remains system‑driven rather than exegetical.

And another point, Sovereigngrace: saying that I “just posit verses without explanation” is simply not accurate. I explained the structure, the contrast, and the authorial pattern in 1 John. You have not addressed any of that. You have only repeated a theological definition of propitiation and treated that definition as if it overrides the grammar and flow of the verse.

Exegesis is more than defining a word. Exegesis deals with how the author uses that word within the sentence, the contrast he is making, and the argument he is building. You have not interacted with the contrast between “ours” and “the whole world,” nor have you shown from the text itself that “world” means “elect.” Until those textual issues are addressed, the interpretation remains theological assertion, not exegesis.

Propitiation does carry the idea of appeasement, but isolating a word from its context always leads to an incomplete or distorted reading. Exegesis requires more than defining a term; it requires following the author’s argument, the contrast he makes, and the way he uses the word within the sentence. That is the part of 1 John 2:2 that still hasn’t been addressed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sovereigngrace, you didn’t actually show that verses 10–13 redefine “every man” in verse 9. You asserted it, but you didn’t demonstrate it. Nothing in verses 10–13 changes the wording of verse 9 or limits it. They describe the purpose and result of Christ’s suffering for the sons He brings to glory, but they do not say He only tasted death for those sons.

The grammar is simple: verse 9 states the scope (“every man”), and verses 10–13 describe the goal of His suffering. That is not a limitation clause. If you believe verses 10–13 restrict the meaning of “every man,” then show the actual words in the text that do so. Point to the phrase that narrows it. That’s all I’m asking.

I am just off on a brief holiday, so I don't have much time, but firstly, there is no word for 'man' in the text.
Secondly, I quote from Prof. John Murray, to show that @SovereignGrace is not unsupported in his understanding:

'Of whom is the writer speaking in the context? He is speaking of the many sons to be brought to glory (v.10), of the sanctified who with the Sanctifier are all of one (v.11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (v.12) and of the children which God had given Him (v.13). It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the 'every one' for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him [c.f. John 6:39 etc. M.M.] But there is not the slightest warrant in the text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context.
This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless is such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement' [John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth, 1961) page 61]

Appealing to later verses without demonstrating how they redefine the earlier wording is not exegesis.

The later verses do redefine your understanding of the earlier wording, and define the correct understanding; therefore the appeal to them is exegesis. Everyone on behalf of [Gk. huper] whom our Lord tasted death 'shall never see death' (John 8:51). Therefore His death cannot have been universal.

 

[JonC]

Every believer here who thinks they are a Calvinist should watch this video.

Every believer who thinks they are a Calvinist should read God's Word apart from their philosophy.

 

[David Lamb]

Every believer who thinks they are a Calvinist should read God's Word apart from their philosophy.

Do you really imagine that people who say they are Calvinists/believers in the Doctrines of Grace study their Bibles alongside Calvin's "Institutes"?

 

[Ascetic X]

I am just off on a brief holiday, so I don't have much time, but firstly, there is no word for 'man' in the text.
Secondly, I quote from Prof. John Murray, to show that @SovereignGrace is not unsupported in his understanding:

'Of whom is the writer speaking in the context? He is speaking of the many sons to be brought to glory (v.10), of the sanctified who with the Sanctifier are all of one (v.11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (v.12) and of the children which God had given Him (v.13). It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the 'every one' for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him [c.f. John 6:39 etc. M.M.] But there is not the slightest warrant in the text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context.
This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless is such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement' [John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth, 1961) page 61]

The later verses do redefine your understanding of the earlier wording, and define the correct understanding; therefore the appeal to them is exegesis. Everyone on behalf of [Gk. huper] whom our Lord tasted death 'shall never see death' (John 8:51). Therefore His death cannot have been universal.

Would you seriously witness to an unsaved person, saying, “If you accept Jesus as your Lord, then He died for your sins. But if you reject Jesus as Lord, then He didn’t die for your sins” —???

Scriptures never say Jesus died for the sins of those who believe in Him. It says He died for the whole world, so any who wills may come.

 

[JonC]

Do you really imagine that people who say they are Calvinists/believers in the Doctrines of Grace study their Bibles alongside Calvin's "Institutes"?

No, I assume most have read nothing of how their doctrine was developed. This is one reason I chose to study theology in seminary. I knew our theologies often differed from God's Word and decided it was important to know why.

But most believe what they were taught Scripture really means and they apply this to their reading of Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Would you seriously witness to an unsaved person, saying, “If you accept Jesus as your Lord, then He died for your sins. But if you reject Jesus as Lord, then He didn’t die for your sins” —???

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?
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. 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.

'Nothing in my hand I bring;
Simply to Thy cross I cling.
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace.
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die!'

Scriptures never say Jesus died for the sins of those who believe in Him. It says He died for the whole world, so any who wills may come.

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

 

[DaveXR650]

But most believe what they were taught Scripture really means and they apply this to their reading of Scripture.

Speaking of this Jon, what is your opinion of this "book of life" argument which is new to me? In your opinion, does the wording of Revelation 3:5 mean necessarily that God then does indeed actually remove names from the book of life, or, is it only meant as a comfort to real believers as they are encouraged to "overcome". In other words, let's not add anything to the actual scripture.

And, then when we look at Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 where the book of life is mentioned again, in both cases it is mentioned that the names were there "before the foundation of the world". Granted, the 13:8 passage could be argued that "before the foundation of the world strictly refers to the lamb which was slain "before the foundation of the world" (depending upon the version used). However; it seems that that won't work in the 17:8 passage because it clearly is referring to the book, not Christ.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am just off on a brief holiday, so I don't have much time, but firstly, there is no word for 'man' in the text.
Secondly, I quote from Prof. John Murray, to show that @SovereignGrace is not unsupported in his understanding:

'Of whom is the writer speaking in the context? He is speaking of the many sons to be brought to glory (v.10), of the sanctified who with the Sanctifier are all of one (v.11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (v.12) and of the children which God had given Him (v.13). It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the 'every one' for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him [c.f. John 6:39 etc. M.M.] But there is not the slightest warrant in the text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context.
This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless is such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement' [John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Banner of Truth, 1961) page 61]

The later verses do redefine your understanding of the earlier wording, and define the correct understanding; therefore the appeal to them is exegesis. Everyone on behalf of [Gk. huper] whom our Lord tasted death 'shall never see death' (John 8:51). Therefore His death cannot have been universal.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Every believer who thinks they are a Calvinist should read God's Word apart from their philosophy.

How pathetic! Everyone who is not a Calvinist should read God's word. Period.