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.

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.

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.