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.

 

[kyredneck]

My point was that if you and @Ascetic X can be so wildly inaccurate about Calvinism and what it actually is, how can any of us have confidence in your understanding of the Bible?

Excellent point.

 

[Ascetic X]

My point was that if you and @Ascetic X can be so wildly inaccurate about Calvinism and what it actually is, how can any of us have confidence in your understanding of the Bible?

What specifically have we said that was “so wildly inaccurate about Calvinism”?

This is a common defense of Calvinism, not correcting the alleged misrepresentation, but just claiming we do not portray Calvinism accurately.

The fact is that the people who talk about 'just Scripture' are usually heretics.

You align yourself with the Roman Catholic objection to sola scriptura. Popes call Protestants heretics.

Before and during the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church taught that its sacred traditions and the decrees of the Pope held equal authority to the written Word of God. Reformers like Martin Luther pushed back against this, arguing that practices like the selling of indulgences were unbiblical "traditions of men". They rallied around the idea of returning to the Bible as the sole solid foundation for the doctrines of the Church.

I suppose your rejection of “just scripture” is why you support your position, not by quoting scriptures, but by quoting theologians who agree with the system you champion, as you do in the next quote.

Here is a very brief sample of Spurgeon's early preaching. His text was Galatians 1:15: 'It pleased God.'

I find it odd that Calvinists almost never quote John Calvin himself.

Perhaps they should rebrand their peculiar theology as Spurgeonism, Owenism, Berkhofism, Piperism, Carsonism, McArthurism, or Sproulism.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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

Martin, I appreciate the clarification. But if Murray is “showing the meaning from the context,” then the limiting language should be visible in the text itself. That’s all I’m asking for. Verse 9 uses the unqualified panta. Verses 10–13 describe the sons, brethren, and children, but they never say that Christ tasted death only for them. They describe the purpose and result of His suffering, not a restriction of its scope.

If the context truly redefines panta, then the writer must supply the narrowing words. Otherwise we’re not reading a limitation; we’re inferring one. Murray may believe the later verses imply a restriction, but implication is not the same as explicit textual definition.

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.

You are, of course, right. My post was an attempt at irony, but clearly it went astray. My point was that if you and @Ascetic X can be so wildly inaccurate about Calvinism and what it actually is, how can any of us have confidence in your understanding of the Bible?

What I find ironic is that you and @JonC are always talking about just using the words of Scripture, and how wonderful it is to rely purely on that, and yet you can find no agreement and end up in a shouting match.
The fact is that the people who talk about 'just Scripture' are usually heretics. The JWs do it all the time. At the beginning of the 18th Century, there was a great upsurge in Unitarianism and those who were leading that insisted on only using the words of Scripture. BUt when people asked them what they understood by those words, they became very coy. I wrote an article on the subject and then putit on my blog. You can read it here: Learning The Lessons of History (1)

Learning the Lessons of History (2)

[Read first I am sure that I cannot be alone in seeing remarkable parallels between the early 18th Century and today. In our own time we have seen a marked decline in Christian orthodoxy and teac…

marprelate.wordpress.com

The fact is that almost everyone on the B.B. claims to believe the words of Scripture. You would suppose that we would be a wonderful united fellowship, but the fact is that we end up falling out because we don't agree on what the words mean.
@DaveXR650 recommended a fine book by Iain Murray, Spurgeon Vs. Hyper-Calvinism, published by Banner of Truth. I also recommend another book by the same author and publisher, The Forgotten Spurgeon. This book covers the 'Baptismal Regeneration' controversy of 1864, and also the 'Downgrade' controversy of Spurgeon's final years. But most interestingly for you, @Ascetic X and others is his defence of Calvinism against the wretched, diluted gospel fashionable in London in the 1850s.
Here is a very brief sample of Spurgeon's early preaching. His text was Galatians 1:15: 'It pleased God.'

'You will perceive, I think, in these words, that the divine plan of salvation is very clearly laid down. It begins, you see, in the will and pleasure of God: "When it pleased God." THe foundation of salvation is not laid down in the will of man. It does begin with man's obedience, and the proceed on to the purpose of God; but here is its commencement, here the fountain-head from which the living waters flow: "It pleased God." Next to the sovereign will and good pleasure of God comes the act of separation, commonly known by the name of election. This act is said in the text to take place even in the mother's womb, by which we are taught that it took place before our birth when as yet we could have done nothing whatever to win it or to merit it. God separated us from the earliest part and time of our being; and indeed, long before that, when as yet the mountains and hills were not piled, and the oceans were not formed by His creative power, he had, in His eternal purpose, set us apart for Himself. Then, after this act of separation came the effectual calling: "and called me by His grace"........'

Martin, thanks for the clarification. I’ll stay with the original point I made, because it’s the only point I intended to make. The absence of a term in Scripture does not invalidate the use of the term. The question is never whether a label appears in the text, but whether the doctrine the label represents can be demonstrated from the text itself.

As for Calvinism, my concern has never been with the label but with the accuracy of the system’s claims when compared to Scripture. If I am wrong in any specific place, the correction needs to come from the text, not from history, personalities, or denominational tradition. Those things may be interesting, but they are not authoritative.

I’m not advocating “just Scripture” in the sense you’re describing. I’m advocating Scripture first, letting the text define its own categories before any system does. That’s the only way any of us can avoid talking past one another. If we disagree on the meaning of a passage, the solution is to stay with the passage, not to appeal to Spurgeon, Murray, or 18th‑century controversies.

If you believe I’ve misunderstood Calvinism at any point, feel free to show me from the text where the misunderstanding occurs. That’s the kind of discussion I’m always willing to have.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

you can find no agreement and end up in a shouting match.

BTW -I never shout. I prefer calm, clear discussion. My aim is always to stay with the text and keep the temperature low.

 

[DaveXR650]

I suppose this is why you support your position, not by quoting scriptures, but by quoting theologians who agree with the system you champion, as you do in the next quote.

So you attack the system he champions, and he replies by quoting a prominent member of "the system he champions", who is quoting a specific verse of scripture (which appears to be what you are demanding), and you reply that he is not quoting scripture as you wished he would? Do you think maybe you missed something there?

 

[Ascetic X]

So you attack the system he champions, and he replies by quoting a prominent member of "the system he champions", who is quoting a specific verse of scripture (which appears to be what you are demanding), and you reply that he is not quoting scripture as you wished he would? Do you think maybe you missed something there?

You are missing something there.

He is quoting a theologian’s interpretation of scripture.

Calvinists cannot let scripture speak for itself, they have to add words to it (changing “all men” to “all elect men”) or have to present what a Calvinist theologian said about a scripture.

The scripture is quoted, but it’s surrounded by a favored theologian’s commentary on it.

 

[DaveXR650]

My aim is always to stay with the text and keep the temperature low.

So Revelation 17:8, when it says "... and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...", doesn't that give you a problem with your premise that everyone's name is written in the book of life but then it is possible that names are removed. It would seem from this that these people's names were not written in the book of life at from the foundation of the world.

Dave, the blotting‑out passages are not my invention. They are in Scripture. You may not have encountered the argument before, but that does not make it strange or amateur. It simply means your system has never required you to deal with those texts.

If you do not wish to address the passages, that is your choice. But the refusal to engage them is telling. The argument stands or falls on Scripture itself, not on whether someone has heard it before.

I am dealing with those texts now and it seems you didn't include all those texts. I'm just asking, what do you make of this?

The reason the blotting out passages go unanswered is simple: they do not fit the architecture of your system.

If you want to engage the argument, deal with the texts themselves, not with historical figures, not with emotional appeals, and not with the diversity of Calvinist opinion. Scripture is the authority, not the system.

Now the ball is in your court. It appears to me you have two problems. One is that the names in the book of life are in there before the foundation of the world, giving an excellent argument for predestination, or at least foreknowledge, which is fine with me as long as you admit that it is "set" and known from that time. Two would be that the "book of life" references in the Old Testament could be a figurative way of referring to Israel (God's covenant people) and not the Lamb's book of life.

At any rate it would appear to me that to have the names of those who will be saved known from the foundation of the world would be an argument that Calvinists should use more. You appear to be basing everything on a hypothetical possibility of having one's name removed from the book of life, with no reference anywhere else of a group of people who have had their names removed. So then Revelation 3:5 which clearly states that those whose names are written in the book of life were already written in the book of life, and they are those who overcome. So unless you can come up with an group mentioned later who are those who had their names removed your use of this as an argument becomes doubtful. In Revelation it seems there are non-elect, referred to as people of the earth, and the elect.

So, the argument can still be made that the elect are those who overcome and the Calvinists are mistaken in saying that they overcome because they are elect - while that could be the case, it would seem to me that somewhere there would be an actual group consisting of those who had their names removed from the book of life. You say well, that's there in that all those whose names were not found written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. Yes, but since we like to use exact scripture it is notable that it does not say those whose names had been removed from the book of life. After all, scripture says the names were recorded before the foundation of the earth. If you are going to make a big deal out of Revelation 3:5 as literally having people's names who were once in the book of life removed then you must be as precise with those other verses I would think.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are missing something there.

He is quoting a theologian’s interpretation of scripture.

Calvinists cannot let scripture speak for itself, they have to add words to it (changing “all men” to “all elect men”) or have to present what a Calvinist theologian said about a scripture.

The scripture is quoted, but it’s surrounded by a favored theologian’s commentary on it.

Sure he is. So what? You attack the theologians theology and he supports it with a verse. You should show the way and show why the theologian messed up the interpretation of the verse, not whine that he quoted a theologian. I get really concerned on here about the constant criticism of those of us who quote others. I was taught from under grad years that you better quote someone until you are at least a known, published PH.D. because no one is the least bit interested in your opinion. It's only been since the age of the internet that now Joe's Anti-Calvinist page is considered equal with the works of John Owen. I'm sticking with quotes as we see on here repeatedly what happens with home grown theology.

 

[Ascetic X]

Sure he is. So what? You attack the theologians theology and he supports it with a verse. You should show the way and show why the theologian messed up the interpretation of the verse, not whine that he quoted a theologian. I get really concerned on here about the constant criticism of those of us who quote others. I was taught from under grad years that you better quote someone until you are at least a known, published PH.D. because no one is the least bit interested in your opinion. It's only been since the age of the internet that now Joe's Anti-Calvinist page is considered equal with the works of John Owen. I'm sticking with quotes as we see on here repeatedly what happens with home grown theology.

No, he did not support the theology with a verse. He defended the theology with a theologian’s commentary on a verse.

Certainly you understand the difference between quoting a scripture vs. quoting what a theologian says about a scripture.

See how you are trapped in this loop?

“You better quote someone” is exalting the opinions of men over the scriptures.

To defend quoting theologians, rather than scriptures, you quote what a teacher taught you from undergrad years. Again, you tell me what others told you.

Were Jesus or Peter or John published PhD scholars?

Your university or seminary professors sound pompous like Pharisees.

They probably did not like the story of when Jesus at 12 years old was questioning the religious leaders in the temple.

Quoting scripture is not “home grown theology”, it’s the Bible itself, letting the holy Word of God speak for itself, sola scriptura.

To always try to understand the scriptures through the writings of theologians is not Bible study, it’s studying the ideas of men.

Do we want to understand God’s Word? Or do we prefer to rely only on what a certain sect’s theologians say about God’s Word?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So Revelation 17:8, when it says "... and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...", doesn't that give you a problem with your premise that everyone's name is written in the book of life but then it is possible that names are removed. It would seem from this that these people's names were not written in the book of life at from the foundation of the world.

I am dealing with those texts now and it seems you didn't include all those texts. I'm just asking, what do you make of this?

Now the ball is in your court. It appears to me you have two problems. One is that the names in the book of life are in there before the foundation of the world, giving an excellent argument for predestination, or at least foreknowledge, which is fine with me as long as you admit that it is "set" and known from that time. Two would be that the "book of life" references in the Old Testament could be a figurative way of referring to Israel (God's covenant people) and not the Lamb's book of life.

At any rate it would appear to me that to have the names of those who will be saved known from the foundation of the world would be an argument that Calvinists should use more. You appear to be basing everything on a hypothetical possibility of having one's name removed from the book of life, with no reference anywhere else of a group of people who have had their names removed. So then Revelation 3:5 which clearly states that those whose names are written in the book of life were already written in the book of life, and they are those who overcome. So unless you can come up with an group mentioned later who are those who had their names removed your use of this as an argument becomes doubtful. In Revelation it seems there are non-elect, referred to as people of the earth, and the elect.

So, the argument can still be made that the elect are those who overcome and the Calvinists are mistaken in saying that they overcome because they are elect - while that could be the case, it would seem to me that somewhere there would be an actual group consisting of those who had their names removed from the book of life. You say well, that's there in that all those whose names were not found written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. Yes, but since we like to use exact scripture it is notable that it does not say those whose names had been removed from the book of life. After all, scripture says the names were recorded before the foundation of the earth. If you are going to make a big deal out of Revelation 3:5 as literally having people's names who were once in the book of life removed then you must be as precise with those other verses I would think.

Dave, I appreciate that you’re finally engaging the passages themselves. That has been my only aim from the beginning.

On Revelation 17:8, the phrase “and go into perdition” is describing the final state of the lost after every age of human history has concluded. By the time John is speaking of these people, the Church age is complete, the Tribulation has run its course, the Millennium has ended, and final judgment is underway. In other words, Revelation 17:8 is describing the end of the story, not the beginning.

Those who “go into perdition” are those whose names are not found written at that point. Those whose names are not found written are those who did not overcome, and Scripture speaks of their names being blotted out. Revelation 17:8 describes the final state; Revelation 3:5 describes the warning and promise that precede that final state. The promise that the overcomer’s name will never be blotted out only carries weight if the language of blotting is meaningful rather than decorative.

You are correct that Scripture uses “book” language in more than one way. Exodus 32 and Psalm 69 speak of blotting out in a covenant context; Revelation speaks of the Lamb’s book of life in an eschatological context. My point is not to collapse these categories, but simply to let each passage speak with its own force. The blotting‑out texts exist, and they must be given their due place in the architecture of any system.

Revelation 17:8 does not say that no name can ever be added or removed; it says that those who end in perdition were not written from the foundation of the world. That describes God’s foreknowledge of their final state. It does not settle the mechanics of how the warnings and promises in Revelation 3:5 operate within human history.

If Calvinism wishes to use Revelation 17:8 as a strong argument for foreknowledge or predestination, that is fine. But it must still make room for the blotting‑out passages without explaining them away. My concern is simply to let the texts stand as they are, even when they sit uncomfortably with a preferred system.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So Revelation 17:8, when it says "... and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...", doesn't that give you a problem with your premise that everyone's name is written in the book of life but then it is possible that names are removed. It would seem from this that these people's names were not written in the book of life at from the foundation of the world.

I am dealing with those texts now and it seems you didn't include all those texts. I'm just asking, what do you make of this?

Now the ball is in your court. It appears to me you have two problems. One is that the names in the book of life are in there before the foundation of the world, giving an excellent argument for predestination, or at least foreknowledge, which is fine with me as long as you admit that it is "set" and known from that time. Two would be that the "book of life" references in the Old Testament could be a figurative way of referring to Israel (God's covenant people) and not the Lamb's book of life.

At any rate it would appear to me that to have the names of those who will be saved known from the foundation of the world would be an argument that Calvinists should use more. You appear to be basing everything on a hypothetical possibility of having one's name removed from the book of life, with no reference anywhere else of a group of people who have had their names removed. So then Revelation 3:5 which clearly states that those whose names are written in the book of life were already written in the book of life, and they are those who overcome. So unless you can come up with an group mentioned later who are those who had their names removed your use of this as an argument becomes doubtful. In Revelation it seems there are non-elect, referred to as people of the earth, and the elect.

So, the argument can still be made that the elect are those who overcome and the Calvinists are mistaken in saying that they overcome because they are elect - while that could be the case, it would seem to me that somewhere there would be an actual group consisting of those who had their names removed from the book of life. You say well, that's there in that all those whose names were not found written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. Yes, but since we like to use exact scripture it is notable that it does not say those whose names had been removed from the book of life. After all, scripture says the names were recorded before the foundation of the earth. If you are going to make a big deal out of Revelation 3:5 as literally having people's names who were once in the book of life removed then you must be as precise with those other verses I would think.

Dave, I see your reply crossed with mine.

The points I raised still apply directly to what you’ve written.

I’m content to let the texts speak for themselves and let the discussion proceed from there.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Sure he is. So what? You attack the theologians theology and he supports it with a verse. You should show the way and show why the theologian messed up the interpretation of the verse, not whine that he quoted a theologian. I get really concerned on here about the constant criticism of those of us who quote others. I was taught from under grad years that you better quote someone until you are at least a known, published PH.D. because no one is the least bit interested in your opinion. It's only been since the age of the internet that now Joe's Anti-Calvinist page is considered equal with the works of John Owen. I'm sticking with quotes as we see on here repeatedly what happens with home grown theology.

Quoting a theologian is not the same thing as quoting Scripture. A theologian may quote Scripture, but the moment he adds interpretation, we are dealing with his system, not the text itself. There’s nothing wrong with citing scholars, but the authority in the discussion is still the passage, not the commentator. The question is whether the interpretation fits the text, not whether the interpreter has a PhD.