37818
Well-Known Member
What translation supports "he was sanctified" [in the 3rd person] referring to the Son of God? Re: Hebrews 10:29.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Understanding John Owen's argument.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
-
- Tags
- limited atonement
First of all, I do not accept that there is any such thing as a '4 point Calvinist.' Calvinism is the whole five points.
Secondly, Calvinism did not begin with Calvin. It was a hot potato in the 9th Century, being upheld by the councils of Valence (855) and Langres (859) before the Semi-Pelagians struck back. It was the teaching of John Wycliffe in the 14th Century and was taught by William Tyndale while Calvin was still in short pants.
I believe the Bible teaches very clearly that, in eternity, God the Father gave to the Son a vast number of sinners to redeem. The Lord Jesus has redeemed every one - not one will be lost (John 6:39; 17:2 etc.). That's Definite Redemption, though TUDIP isn't quite as catchy as TULIP.
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
You know, that's the best thing I've seen on here. I've already checked out the Valence (855). Thanks for putting that up.
All of them SFAIK. I gave the NKJV earlier; here's the ESV.
'How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he [the Son of God, the nearest antecedent] was sanctified.....'
I don't understand your problem. 'The rebellious Israelites only trod under foot the blood of calves and goats, with which the Sinai covenant was ratified; but the apostate from Christianity trod under foot the blood of the Son of God..... The blood of the covenant is that by which it was ratified. It may be a question whether the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified refers to Christ or to the apostate. The Lord says, "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified through the truth." Again, believers are sanctified in Christ Jesus, but how can this be said of apostates? "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not of us."
[James Haldane, 'An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews,' Particular Baptist Press]
37818
Well-Known Member
@Martin Marprelate
αξιωθησεται, shall he be thought worthy [3rd person]
ηγιασθη, he was sanctified [same 3rd person in Greek grammar] Not English grammar.
αξιωθησεται, shall he be thought worthy [3rd person]
ηγιασθη, he was sanctified [same 3rd person in Greek grammar] Not English grammar.
Perfectly good grammar, both English and Greek. It could hardly be put in the 1st or 2nd Person, could it?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
John Calvin, Commentary on Mark 14:24
“Mark 14:24. This is my blood. I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed — according to the narrative of Matthew — for the remission of sins, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lord’s Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.
Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke — Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.”
Make of it whatever you will.Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke — Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.”
Of the ten pages I've read so far
... I don't think the remaining ten will not cause a problem of 100% Christ and no intervention of mortal man... Brother Glen
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, δοκειτε, suppose ye [is the readers or hears, in the 2nd person plural]
I think you misunderstand Owen. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world. He did not shed His blood to "deeper damn" those who are condemned already.
Those who die in the sins are not redeemed. They are not bought.
The verse in Romans has to do with the title He gained by his work on earth, which was not to condemn.
37818
Well-Known Member
Then who bought them and how? ". . . But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . ." -- 2 Peter 2:1 [Jude 1:4]
Last edited:
Ditto. Scroll.
Excerpt:
"He bought the whole field, but He particularly bought the treasure that was hidden in that field [Matthew 13:44]. "The Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." [1 Timothy 4:10]
Last edited:
That isn't saying the false prophets were bought, it's saying that believers will be duped into denying the Lord that bought them. Destruction of the corporate church is having its candlestick removed. The particular body of believers is delivered into the hands of their persecutors, or internal strife scatters the members. Destruction of an individual believer isn't the destruction of the spirit, but of the flesh, as the one Paul delivered unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved.
How many insect fragments are in a box of oatmeal? I didn't buy the box . . . (well, technically I did, but that's not what I was spending my money on. I discarded the box) . . . or the insects. I bought the oatmeal. The idea that the false prophets were 'bought by the Lord' can only be meaningful in the sense that they are the tares in the bag of wheat. No one buys the tares. The real purchase is for the wheat. The tares are just there. But that's so inconsequential of a 'meaning' to give it any consideration as the sense of the passage.
37818
Well-Known Member
According to Luke 22:20-21 the redemption included lost Judas. It is explicitly true.
Jesus did not intend so save Judas, as he was the son of perdition and a devil from the beginning, only person stated to have Satan Himself possess him!
37818
Well-Known Member
Not at issue. What is at issue, Judas remaining lost was included, Luke 22:20-21.
Again, it's like the bag of wheat. You didn't buy the tares in the wheat, and you aren't referring to the tares in the wheat when you speak of the bag.
The 'you' are Christ's disciples. Not Judas.
CONSPICILLUM
Member
As with Owens’ other conceptual and deductive presentations on Soteriology, this is inaccurate.
Objective Justification and Subjective Justification should never be conflated. All statements and questions that frame the topic as Christ dying for the sinS of all or some men are fallacious.
Christ was made sin (singular anarthrous hamartia) for all mankind. This is Objective Justificaiton. Christ didn’t die for the sinS (plural articular hamartemata) of some OR all men. That would be Subjective Justification. Redemption is Cosmological and Apocalyptic before it is Anthropological and Eschatological. It’s the whole (inhabited) cosmos that is being redeemed, not merely mankind.
When properly understood, this resigns Calvinism and Arminianism to a false dichotomy based upon false premises.
Objective Justification and Subjective Justification should never be conflated. All statements and questions that frame the topic as Christ dying for the sinS of all or some men are fallacious.
Christ was made sin (singular anarthrous hamartia) for all mankind. This is Objective Justificaiton. Christ didn’t die for the sinS (plural articular hamartemata) of some OR all men. That would be Subjective Justification. Redemption is Cosmological and Apocalyptic before it is Anthropological and Eschatological. It’s the whole (inhabited) cosmos that is being redeemed, not merely mankind.
When properly understood, this resigns Calvinism and Arminianism to a false dichotomy based upon false premises.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the board, or I should say the asylum. Why don't you enlighten us on the correct meaning of the atonement. I heard somewhere that Owen wrote something on that but what does he know. Also, on this board there are a lot of us who really are Baptists so you will have to limit 3 and 4 syllable words to 3 per sentence.
CONSPICILLUM
Member
Thanks for the welcome. Forums are indeed always an asylum. One more inmate now.
It wasn’t a wholesale dismissal of Owens at all. It’s a common grammatical issue that few English speakers recognize. Christ was made sin (the condition and state of being) for all mankind. The atonement begins with Objective Justification available to all men (neither Limited/Particular Calvinist Atonement nor Unlimited Arminian Atonement, since both are predicated upon Christ dying for the sinS - resulting acts - of some OR all men).
Christ didn’t die for the sinS (individual resulting acts) of man, whether for some OR all of them. Owens, like most others after him, frames Objective Justification as Subjective Justification (the atonement for sin is for hamartia the condition, not hamartemata the acts). Atonement has two aspects, not just one.
Another issue is whether there even IS an Ordo Salutis. Everyone on “either side” presumes there is. We don’t need Infralapsarianism OR Supralapsarianism for authentic Biblical Monergism and avoiding Semi-Pelagianism (which is what Arminianism is inevitably conjoined with.)