Prevenient Grace

[Allan]

Naa uhhhh........... lol.

Mark 4:
[11] And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.​

Note that this particular passage is talking about conversion, and the forgiveness of sins.
And note that Jesus does *not* want some people to be converted; He does not want them to have their sins forgiven. He forsees that they would have faith if they truly understood His message, but He explicitly says that He uses parables so that they will *not* understand Him. Again, God does not respond to foreknown faith by predestining them!
Notice that Mark 4:11-12 actually demonstrates the *opposite* of prevenient grace. This is more like an example of Divine "prevenient hardening". Consider this comparison:

• Arminians think that God wants as many people to repent and be saved as possible, and that He gives all people "prevenient grace" to enable the salvation of all people.
• But Mark 4:11-12 teaches us that God knew about some people who *would* repent and be saved, and so Jesus spoke in parables to make sure that would not happen! Jesus refrained from speaking to them clearly, "lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

The above two statements are completely in opposition to one another. Arminian "prevenient grace" is a doctrine that directly contradicts the Scriptures.
Conclusion

In Matthew 11:21-27, we can see that God sometimes withholds things from people, even when He knows that those very things would have brought people to repentance. These actions of God do not sound at all like the actions of Someone who wishes to enable the salvation of everybody.
In Mark 4:11-12, we can see that Jesus intentionally spoke in parables, instead of plain language, so that many people would *not* understand, repent, and be forgiven. This is clearly the opposite of Arminian prevenient grace.
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/prevenient.htmhttp://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/prevenient.htm

Ok, (1) Please go back through and (unlike the author of the article) explain the prophesy from Isaiah as the crux of their National blinding since it is obviously not individual blinding.

THEN (2)explain why God states in Isaiah the reason for the blinding they will Nationally receive is due to their continued disobedience and rebellion, because God has continually and consistantly called (pleaded) with Israel to repent and come back to HIm. Yet we see time and again consecutively for generations that they would not.
SO...we see He gives them over to their rebellion AFTER their continued disobedience Nationally.

And also, if you would be so kind brother, (3) to why God would blind His own people who are called by His unto Himself for His wife (Israel).

Then (one last favor) (4) explain why God divorces His wife (Israel) for adultry for Idolatry (Jer 3:8). An action God HATES but is allowable for such a sin.

(on a side note: God will restore His relationship with Israel and bring her back unto Himself)

 

[skypair]

Hello skypair.

Who was it then that spoke to Abraham or is that just being silly?

So far as Abram and the OT were concerned, God. You don't read Him called "Jesus" in the OT, do you? Cause that would imply all the things we know about Him now, right??

My salvation has come through the forgiveness of my sins, John's dad says so. A prophetic priest.

Good! But even John's dad thought the KINGDOM had come, not the sacrifice.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Arminians tend to understand that OUR theology recognizes the questions, our theology figures in that WE CAN'T explain every detail -- some things will appear unfathomable or even paradoxical -- to us HUMANS. That's because GOD is sovereign, not us.

I say that WE "dare to go where no Calvinist has been" ---- the "mind of Christ!!"

Where Calvinists divert their questions with "the hidden wisdom of God," we who have some maturity in the faith realize that God has given us His "hidden wisdom" (1Cor 2:6) and we need't be having some of these "gaps" in our theology like R.C. Sproul, for instance, does --- namely: "I don't know why God chooses whom He elects." Or like rb saying "God takes care of deceased infants somehow.

Another thing --- WE are willing to investigate things that don't precisely fit into our theology and to work with others towards finding the "mind of Christ." But I find Calvinists (no all!) are bound in "straight jackets" so far as anything that smells heretical of Calvinism. And I can see why. They spawned a reformation from their faith just like Catholicism birthed them.

skypair

 

[JDale]

JDALE , I fail to understand your protestations . I had said in my post that it is the duty of all believers to proclaim , teach , preach the G.C. So for you to somehow infer that I don't believe in evangelism is mysterious . And how in the world did you come to the conclusion that I believe in universalism ? Adjust your reading glasses please .

Rip:

I understood you perfectly! This is where I'm coming from -- the Will of God is not a mystery:

I Timothy 2:4 "God wants EVERYONE to be saved and to know the whole truth.."

II Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some people count slackness; but He is patient, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."

The case for Calvinist Universalism, then, is quite elementary:

IF God "is not willing that any should perish," and that "God wants everyone to be saved,"

And if, as Calvinists insist upon, God's will cannot be thwarted, but He WILL save all those whom He desires to save,

THEN ALL WILL BE SAVED.

Now, I don't for a second believe the vast majority of Calvinists believe that. Using the kind of logic and scriptural interpretation you've employeed though, Rip, this is the ONLY sensible conclusion. And, if this is the case, it matters not WHAT you do -- God will save whom He will save, and we are not necessary to the process.

However, one cannot consider this issue without mentioning the terms "world," and "whosoever" in the writings of John. And then there is that pesky little word "IF," and the oft given command "you MUST."

Rip, God's hand is not shortened, that He CANNOT save -- but He has chosen to save those who come to Him BY FAITH. Those who come BY FAITH are "the elect." And from beginning to end, it is a work of God -- of His grace, by the Holy Spirit's power!

JDale

 

[johnp.]

Another thing --- WE are willing to investigate things that don't precisely fit into our theology and to work with others towards finding the "mind of Christ."

Who do you think you are skypair? ISA 45:15 Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

1 Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
1CO 2:16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.

All Christians have the mind of Christ maybe some don't use it.

john.

 

[Rippon]

JDALE , 1 Timothy 2:4 is referring to all sorts and classes of people -- not each and every person past , present and future .

I am surprised that you have come to those conclusions of yours . You mistakenly think Calvinists' are driven logically to assume that all will be saved . I do not think you are familiar with our side of the aisle -- which is the more biblical ( IMO ) . The Lord is not willing that any of His elect ones perish . Peter's epistles are addressed to believers . Non-Calvinists have some explaining to do if they think that everyone will be saved because the Lord is not willing that each and every person will not perish . Of course most non-Cals do not believe in universalism - yet that is the rational end-result that they are forced to come up with if they are consistent .
I do agree with one thing you said -- The Lord will indeed save all those He desires to save . And to follow up , those folks are the elect -- His sheep -- His Church . The Lord gives them faith and repentance -- He causes them to believe . Their "faith" can not save them . The only faith that can save is a faith not their own -- it is not self-generating faith .

 

[JDale]

JDALE , 1 Timothy 2:4 is referring to all sorts and classes of people -- not each and every person past , present and future .

I am surprised that you have come to those conclusions of yours . You mistakenly think Calvinists' are driven logically to assume that all will be saved . I do not think you are familiar with our side of the aisle -- which is the more biblical ( IMO ) . The Lord is not willing that any of His elect ones perish . Peter's epistles are addressed to believers . Non-Calvinists have some explaining to do if they think that everyone will be saved because the Lord is not willing that each and every person will not perish . Of course most non-Cals do not believe in universalism - yet that is the rational end-result that they are forced to come up with if they are consistent .
I do agree with one thing you said -- The Lord will indeed save all those He desires to save . And to follow up , those folks are the elect -- His sheep -- His Church . The Lord gives them faith and repentance -- He causes them to believe . Their "faith" can not save them . The only faith that can save is a faith not their own -- it is not self-generating faith .

Rip:

I've not just started studying these truths, or the variety of perspectives about them. And, I understand your position perfectly. My point was that your brand of Calvinism is logically consistent -- extremely so.

You are quite honest in your view that the elect are "forced" into God's grace, and "forced" to have faith and repentance. My brother, if this is true, then the very meaning of the words "grace," "faith" and "repentance" are meaningless.

One cannot be "forced" to receive a "free gift." If it is a gift, we must have the option to reject it. One cannot be "forced" to have "faith," else, it is not faith -- and man is merely an automaton, a play thing in a Divine game, a chess piece in a cosmic match between God and (Satan? Himself? Who?). One cannot "repent" by being "forced." It defies not merely the dictionary, but the Scriptures. Repentance may be prompted by the Holy Spirit, but it only comes from a willing and sorrowful spirit.

I quite understand your view Rip. I just find it to be untenable if words actually mean things, and unbiblical due to the mountainous and overwhelming evidence in Scripture.

JDale

 

[reformedbeliever]

Ok, (1) Please go back through and (unlike the author of the article) explain the prophesy from Isaiah as the crux of their National blinding since it is obviously not individual blinding.

THEN (2)explain why God states in Isaiah the reason for the blinding they will Nationally receive is due to their continued disobedience and rebellion, because God has continually and consistantly called (pleaded) with Israel to repent and come back to HIm. Yet we see time and again consecutively for generations that they would not.
SO...we see He gives them over to their rebellion AFTER their continued disobedience Nationally.

And also, if you would be so kind brother, (3) to why God would blind His own people who are called by His unto Himself for His wife (Israel).

Then (one last favor) (4) explain why God divorces His wife (Israel) for adultry for Idolatry (Jer 3:8). An action God HATES but is allowable for such a sin.

(on a side note: God will restore His relationship with Israel and bring her back unto Himself)

If it were a national blinding, why were there some Jews who believed? Seems like some were not blinded or at least some had the blinders removed. I don't buy the national argument, and surely you can see that I can biblically come to that idea? Maybe not Allan, but there are many theologians out there with all kinds of labels after their name, who are way better educated than myself, with my same beliefs. Not saying that would make them an authority, but there are many of them... so wouldn't you think they have pretty good reason to believe the way they do?
I doubt i'll change your doctrine and you will not change mine. I don't have a problem at all with God being absolutely sovereign and man being responsible..... and i'm sure you don't either.

 

[Allan]

If it were a national blinding, why were there some Jews who believed? Seems like some were not blinded or at least some had the blinders removed. I don't buy the national argument, and surely you can see that I can biblically come to that idea? Maybe not Allan, but there are many theologians out there with all kinds of labels after their name, who are way better educated than myself, with my same beliefs. Not saying that would make them an authority, but there are many of them... so wouldn't you think they have pretty good reason to believe the way they do?
I doubt i'll change your doctrine and you will not change mine. I don't have a problem at all with God being absolutely sovereign and man being responsible..... and i'm sure you don't either.

I don't mean EVERY individyual being blinded thereby making the entire nation blind. That was MY argument (thousands of Jews became Born-Again believers). That was way I stated something to the effect of "God didn't do a very good job of blinding did He if that was the case".
The National sense is a general sense but Nationally maintained (majority) view.
I know there are scholars on both sides who can put us both back in kindergarden. :laugh: But there are still the issues concerning those 4 questions I gave that need to be answered in light of scripture and the Calvinistic view of Soveriegnty.
Most specifically "Why would God divorce a people who He called by name and claimed as His own. And with the Jerimaiah Passage it gives you the understanding of an intimate marriage releationship of the two. A binding agreement between God and men likened to a husband and wife. And God divorces them because of the idolatry which is likened spiritually to Adultry. God hates divorce and scripture says so. However in the Calvinistic view, God Called a people and loved them in an intimate and unifying love only to make them rebell so He could do that which He hates - Divorce them, for another group (NT Saints). And THEN after they are brought to the marriage feast of the Lamb, God will go and restore His relationship with Israel again. But like I said, that is one of the four questions.

Reformed, one thing about me is though I may disagree because of what I have personally found as truth, DOES NOT negate the fact I maintain a teachable spirit. I will not take anything at face value, but will sit down and prayfully examine the scriptures look at all the evidence afterward and THEN determine if I need to change. I have done this many times and even a couple of times through debates right here on BB. But what I find (in general) are those who accept the Calvinstic view and then state "They will NEVER go back". That proves an unteachable spirit and one that resists anything the Spirit of God may reveal that is outside the Calvinistic norm.

That is one of the reasons I hold Spurgeon in such high regard. Though he was an avid Calvinist, he did not state Calvinism answered everything, and did not hold to everything all other calvinists did if he found scripture to the contrary. He is note most by me is saying he hold to Gods soveriegnty and mans resposiblity and the two positions seemingly oppose one another but are true and meet only in eternity. (paraphrase) He contended some "all's" really did mean "all men" when other Calvinists (according to him) tried every way possible to disprove the plain reading of the text. He was teachable, and is the same reason he used men like Moody and worked along side and even encourage their revivals - when Calvinsts today think he was lax in his Calvinism and standards toward the doctrines of Grace. Yet I find him (and you too) more gracefilled than many Calvinists holding fast their doctrines of grace.

 

[Rippon]

JDALE , you maintain that you understand the Calvinistic position perfectly . But you use an Arminian lens in understanding 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 . You say that folks are " forced into the God's grace " . Where has any Calvinist on this board said that ? Where in Church history has any Calvinist made that claim . I would like to see your proof that any Calvinist contends that anyone is " forced to have repentance " . I think your understanding of our position is a bit on the imperfect side .

 

[Rippon]

Allan , it's hard to catch all your mistakes in one post . Let's deal with one of your errors for now . Show me any proof that any Calvinist on this board or in Church history has believed that every instance of "all" in the Bible does not literally mean all . You are going to come up empty-handed . "For all have come short of the glory of God ." That's just one example where no Calvinist has denied the thrust of that word "all" meaning each and every .

 

[reformedbeliever]

Allan , it's hard to catch all your mistakes in one post . Let's deal with one of your errors for now . Show me any proof that any Calvinist on this board or in Church history has believed that every instance of "all" in the Bible does not literally mean all . You are going to come up empty-handed . "For all have come short of the glory of God ." That's just one example where no Calvinist has denied the thrust of that word "all" meaning each and every .

No, the word in this instance is "all sorts of". Just kidding. :laugh: :godisgood:

 

[reformedbeliever]

I don't mean EVERY individyual being blinded thereby making the entire nation blind. That was MY argument (thousands of Jews became Born-Again believers). That was way I stated something to the effect of "God didn't do a very good job of blinding did He if that was the case".
The National sense is a general sense but Nationally maintained (majority) view.
I know there are scholars on both sides who can put us both back in kindergarden. :laugh: But there are still the issues concerning those 4 questions I gave that need to be answered in light of scripture and the Calvinistic view of Soveriegnty.
Most specifically "Why would God divorce a people who He called by name and claimed as His own. And with the Jerimaiah Passage it gives you the understanding of an intimate marriage releationship of the two. A binding agreement between God and men likened to a husband and wife. And God divorces them because of the idolatry which is likened spiritually to Adultry. God hates divorce and scripture says so. However in the Calvinistic view, God Called a people and loved them in an intimate and unifying love only to make them rebell so He could do that which He hates - Divorce them, for another group (NT Saints). And THEN after they are brought to the marriage feast of the Lamb, God will go and restore His relationship with Israel again. But like I said, that is one of the four questions.

Reformed, one thing about me is though I may disagree because of what I have personally found as truth, DOES NOT negate the fact I maintain a teachable spirit. I will not take anything at face value, but will sit down and prayfully examine the scriptures look at all the evidence afterward and THEN determine if I need to change. I have done this many times and even a couple of times through debates right here on BB. But what I find (in general) are those who accept the Calvinstic view and then state "They will NEVER go back". That proves an unteachable spirit and one that resists anything the Spirit of God may reveal that is outside the Calvinistic norm.

That is one of the reasons I hold Spurgeon in such high regard. Though he was an avid Calvinist, he did not state Calvinism answered everything, and did not hold to everything all other calvinists did if he found scripture to the contrary. He is note most by me is saying he hold to Gods soveriegnty and mans resposiblity and the two positions seemingly oppose one another but are true and meet only in eternity. (paraphrase) He contended some "all's" really did mean "all men" when other Calvinists (according to him) tried every way possible to disprove the plain reading of the text. He was teachable, and is the same reason he used men like Moody and worked along side and even encourage their revivals - when Calvinsts today think he was lax in his Calvinism and standards toward the doctrines of Grace. Yet I find him (and you too) more gracefilled than many Calvinists holding fast their doctrines of grace.

I have a lot to learn brother. More so than you. I do not have all the answers. That is why I said "somehow God is able to direct events of all mankind, yet do it in a way that He is not the author of sin". Sky took that and ran with it. He (sky) likes to continually point out that I said "somehow". I don't have a problem not having all the answers. I don't think the bible gives us all the answers. Sometimes sky acts like the bible gives him all the answers, and that is what makes a lot of people upset with him. (or her)
I love you brother, and i'm sure I have a lot to learn from you. I have come to embrace the sovereignty of God along with the responsibility of man. That is an antinomy. If and when we make decisions, those decisions were predestined before time began. With God being all knowing, there can not be another alternative. Now web will come along and say, "yeah but He is omnipresent too" lol. Yes He is. God bless you brother.
edited to add...... if sky is a her... she can forget that lunch date...... unless my wife can come.

 

[webdog]

Allan , it's hard to catch all your mistakes in one post . Let's deal with one of your errors for now . Show me any proof that any Calvinist on this board or in Church history has believed that every instance of "all" in the Bible does not literally mean all . You are going to come up empty-handed . "For all have come short of the glory of God ." That's just one example where no Calvinist has denied the thrust of that word "all" meaning each and every .

Here's one. Remember pas is the word in question here, and is used in the below verse as "everyone".

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Here's one. Remember pas is the word in question here, and is used in the below verse as "everyone".

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Web it can also mean whosoever.... according to strongs.
G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

 

[webdog]

Context dictates how the word is used, though. Whosoever in Hebrews 2:9 really makes no sense.

I don't have any translation that even hints at "whoever", btw...

Heb 2:9
(ALT) But we see Jesus, the One having been made only a little lower [or, only for a short while lower] than [the] angels because of the suffering of death, having been awarded the victor's wreath [of][or, having been crowned with] glory and honor, in order that by [the] grace of God He should taste [fig., experience] death on behalf of all.
(ASV) But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.
(BBE) But we see him who was made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, crowned with glory and honour, because he let himself be put to death so that by the grace of God he might undergo death for all men.
(CEV) What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God's wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor!
(DRB) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all.
(EMTV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, through the suffering of death, having been crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God, He might taste death for everyone.
(ESV) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
(GNB) But we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, so that through God's grace he should die for everyone. We see him now crowned with glory and honor because of the death he suffered.
(GW) Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, but we see him crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death. Through God's kindness he died on behalf of everyone.
(HCSB) But we do see Jesus--made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God's grace He might taste death for everyone--crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.

(ISV) But we do see someone who was made a little lower than the angels. He is Jesus, who is crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might experience death for everyone.
(KJ2000) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(KJV+) But1161 we see991 Jesus,2424 who was made a little lower1642, 1024, 5100 than3844 the angels32 for1223 the3588 suffering3804 of death,2288 crowned4737 with glory1391 and2532 honor;5092 that3704 he by the grace5485 of God2316 should taste1089 death2288 for5228 every man.3956
(KJVR) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(LITV) but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.
(MKJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for all.
(MSG) What we do see is Jesus, made "not quite as high as angels," and then, through the experience of death, crowned so much higher than any angel, with a glory "bright with Eden's dawn light." In that death, by God's grace, he fully experienced death in every person's place.
(Murdock) But we see him, who was depressed somewhat lower than the angels, to be this Jesus, because of the passion of his death; and glory and honor are placed on his head; for God himself, in his grace, tasted death for all men.
(RV) But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man.
(Webster) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(YLT) and him who was made some little less than messengers we see--Jesus--because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Context dictates how the word is used, though. Whosoever in Hebrews 2:9 really makes no sense.

I don't have any translation that even hints at "whoever", btw...

Heb 2:9
(ALT) But we see Jesus, the One having been made only a little lower [or, only for a short while lower] than [the] angels because of the suffering of death, having been awarded the victor's wreath [of][or, having been crowned with] glory and honor, in order that by [the] grace of God He should taste [fig., experience] death on behalf of all.
(ASV) But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man.
(BBE) But we see him who was made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, crowned with glory and honour, because he let himself be put to death so that by the grace of God he might undergo death for all men.
(CEV) What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God's wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor!
(DRB) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all.
(EMTV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, through the suffering of death, having been crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God, He might taste death for everyone.
(ESV) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
(GNB) But we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, so that through God's grace he should die for everyone. We see him now crowned with glory and honor because of the death he suffered.
(GW) Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, but we see him crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death. Through God's kindness he died on behalf of everyone.
(HCSB) But we do see Jesus--made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God's grace He might taste death for everyone--crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.

(ISV) But we do see someone who was made a little lower than the angels. He is Jesus, who is crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might experience death for everyone.
(KJ2000) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(KJV+) But1161 we see991 Jesus,2424 who was made a little lower1642, 1024, 5100 than3844 the angels32 for1223 the3588 suffering3804 of death,2288 crowned4737 with glory1391 and2532 honor;5092 that3704 he by the grace5485 of God2316 should taste1089 death2288 for5228 every man.3956
(KJVR) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(LITV) but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.
(MKJV) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for all.
(MSG) What we do see is Jesus, made "not quite as high as angels," and then, through the experience of death, crowned so much higher than any angel, with a glory "bright with Eden's dawn light." In that death, by God's grace, he fully experienced death in every person's place.
(Murdock) But we see him, who was depressed somewhat lower than the angels, to be this Jesus, because of the passion of his death; and glory and honor are placed on his head; for God himself, in his grace, tasted death for all men.
(RV) But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man.
(Webster) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(YLT) and him who was made some little less than messengers we see--Jesus--because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death.

Well again web, that word is not IMHO inclusive of all mankind. For example, I do not think He tasted death for Judas. With your theology, you will certainly see it as inclusive. With my theology, I will in no way see it as inclusive. I doubt we will change each others minds.

 

[webdog]

I know we wont' change each others minds...but I hope Scripture can. I believe I supplied the Scripture that does show that, btw, and none of it was translated by me .
I pointed out in the other thread that your highlighted word "whsoever" falls after the colon (":") of the word all. Even whosever has to be taken into context meaning whoever of all or everyone.

 

[johnp.]

What's up with the NIV?
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

What's up with HEB 2:10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. ?

In bringing many sons to glory is the 'everyone' meant.

The wages of sin is death and if Jesus died for everyone's sins everyone is saved. The price was paid in full. What's so difficult about that?

john.

 

[webdog]

What's up with the NIV?

I'm not about to pay the royalty fees to download the NIV onto esword

In bringing many sons to glory is the 'everyone' meant.

No, in bringing many sons to glory are those who are saved by grace through faith because of Christ tasting death for everyone.

The wages of sin is death and if Jesus died for everyone's sins everyone is saved. The price was paid in full. What's so difficult about that?

Are we saved now by paid sin...or are we saved by grace through faith?