Tasted Death for every Man !

[Butch5]

Fastfredy0

All means all is a circular argument.
Anyways, I will show the ALL is ambiguous by example:
Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.
"It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology". Now, I on the other hand don't use an ambiguous word like ALL to define my theology. I use other verses to clarify the meaning of ALL.

It's a definition, not a circular argument. It's not ambiguous. The numbers in your example are irrelevant. In your example both Jill and Greg are referring to the totality of motorcycles. Jill is saying that every single motorcycle has two wheels, that's all motorcycles. Greg is saying all motorcycles and referring to the totality of motorcycles. So, in both instances, all means all. The totality of.

Your conflation of ALL and SOME is irrelevant.
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. There you go, Matthew used MANY instead of ALL; therefore Jesus did not die for everyone without exception using your logic that the author is mandated to use SOME or MANY if he does mean ALL. (Where I have already show ALL to be ambiguous).

It's not a conflation, it's a distinction. Firstly, I didn't say an author was mandated to do anything. However, when understood from an early Christian perspective there is no issue. Jesus here is speaking of forgiveness. It's obvious that not all people will have their sins forgiven. Thus His use of many and not all. However, that doesn't mean that He didn't die for all, but rather that not all will have forgiveness through His blood. You see, under the Ransom model of the Atonement Jesus died to redeem mankind. He succeeded in that. However, that doesn't mean man is forgiven, being forgiven requires one turning to Christ. So, you see, people can be redeemed but not turn to Christ for forgiveness. So, while I agree what you posted would present a big problem for those who hold to Penal Atonement, those of us who hold to the Ransom view of the Atonement have no trouble reconciling this.

Again, I've shown the word ALL to be ambiguous. As you said "It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology". I don't use ambiguous words for my theology, you do.
Aside: Notice how ROmans 8:32 says "graciously give us all things". It is obvious that Christ does NOT gives us ALL "everything without exception" for we do not get omnipotence for example. Thus ALL means 'everything without distinction' and not 'everything without exception' or ... perhaps the author meant to say ROmans 8:32 says "graciously give us all SOME things"
Aside: I won't accuse you of Cherry Picking

Premise 1: Faith is required for salvation
Premise 2: Faith cometh by hearing the gospel
Premise 3: Billions of people have died that have not heard the gospel
Conclusion: Christ did not taste death for every man (ALL)... thus ALL does not mean everyone without exception; rather, everyone with distinction.
So, you must use explicit scripture to interpret implicit scripture. All's implicitly means 'everyone without exception' but can mean 'everyone without distinction'.

Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias. "It's funny how people redefine words to fit their theology".

I don't use ambiguous words either. That's why I use the word all. As I've shown, you haven't shown that the word all is ambiguous. In your example, both Jill and Greg are speaking of the totality of motorcycles, all motorcycles. As I said, all means all. You didn't address the passages you posted. So, let's look at them and see if they prove that all is ambiguous as you claim.

I suggested that Romans 5:18 could be understood differently.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:18 KJV)

Your argument could be reversed on you. Using your argument one could argue that death didn't come to all men. It's the same word for all. So, either death came to all men and the righteousness of one came to all men or death and righteousness came to some. Paul is making a contrast here. He's contrasting that which happened through Adam with that which happened through Christ. So, the word "pas", all, has to mean the same things in both cases. Otherwise his contrast breaks down and his argument falls apart. The key word in this passage is "eis" which means unto. It has the idea of moving towards a point. So, as Paul says, death came eis, unto, all men, eis, unto condemnation. Death came towards all men and lead towards condemnation. On the other hand, the righteous act of Christ, came eis unto all men, and leads eis, unto Justification of life. The idea of "eis" is moving towards a point. Eis doesn't denote whether or not that point is reached, only that that's the goal. So we could say in Romans 5;18 that Paul is saying that death came towards man with the goal of condemnation. Likewise, Christ's righteous deed came towards man with the goal of Justification. We see the contrast of condemnation vs. justification. One comes through Adam, the other through Christ. But, in either case it came towards all.

 

[Butch5]

Fastfredy0

You posted Romans 8:32.

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Rom. 8:32 KJV)

You said,

"Aside: Notice how ROmans 8:32 says "graciously give us all things". It is obvious that Christ does NOT gives us ALL "everything without exception" for we do not get omnipotence for example."

I asked you to consider the context. It appears to me that you didn't do that because of the statement here, "for we do not get omnipotence".

Firstly, I would point out that it is the Father, not Christ who is giving the all things. Notice, Paul said, "He that spared not his own Son." Who is being spoken of is very important. However, let's look at the context of this passage.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?(Rom. 8:18-32 KJV)

The first thing we see here is the time. Paul writes of the glory that will be revealed in us. So, we know right from the start that Paul is talking about the Resurrection. Then he goes on to speak of the creation being delivered from bondage into the glorious liberty of the children of God. So, in the Resurrection the creation is going to be freed from bondage and given unto the children of God. Do we see this anywhere else?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:26-28 KJV)

So, we see that in the beginning man had dominion over creation. Paul said that the creation was going to be given back to man. Why doesn't man have it now? Well, there was this thing many refer to as the fall and man lost it. Both David and Paul speak of man's dominion.

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: (Ps. 8:4-6 KJV)

Here David says that God put all things under man's feet. There's that, "all things". Paul also writes of this.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. (Heb. 2:6-8 KJV)

Here Paul says that God put all things under man and that He left nothing that wasn't put under man. There's that "all things" again. And, Paul qualifies it with, "He left nothing that was not put under him". So we see, "all things" were given to man. But man doesn't have them now. Paul goes on.

But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:8-9 KJV)

Paul says, but now we don't see all things put under him. Man isn't doesn't have dominion now, he lost it. Notice, though, Paul says we don't see it "yet". This implies that it will happen.

But now we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels. He was made a man. So we see that through Christ man will regain "all things". In the context of Paul's letter after saying that the creation will be set free from bondage and delivered unto the children of God Paul asks, will He not give us all things? Yes. In the resurrection the creation will be restored and "all things" that were put under man will once again be under him.

So, you see, all means all. Paul qualified his statement with, " he left nothing that is not put under him". That means all. So, no, I don't use ambiguous words to form my doctrine. We see, when understood it in context "all things" doesn't mean everything or anything we want to claim. But, rather "all things" that were put under man in the beginning. And, yes, God will give us "all things" again.

Context is important. Without it we can wind up off base.

 

[rogerg]

Hi Roger,

Firstly, I would turn to the context and ask, do you know what Peter was addressing with this passage. He was addressing an issue that was prevalent in his day. So, when understood in context is this something that applies universally, or was he speaking of certain people? Secondly, Peter is talking about prophecy. We're talking about Scripture.

In general, universally. Specifically, to Christians. 2 Peter 1:1

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Scripture is prophecy

 

[jaybo]

In general, universally. Specifically, to Christians. 2 Peter 1:1

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Scripture is prophecy

Translated into modern English: " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"

 

[rogerg]

What difference does it make who the audience was? Roger, it makes an immense difference. This is one of the big problems I find among Christians, they don't pay attention to who is being addressed. If we have any hope of correctly understanding of the Bible we had better pay attention to who is the audience is. One of the big problems in Christianity today is people taking passages of Scripture and either using them out of context or applying them universally.

If you perceive the purpose of the Bible to be focused upon earthly thing maybe. But the Bible is definitely not concerned with the earthly . The Bible informs us that its purpose is to declare Christ:

[Psa 40:7-10 KJV]
7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,
8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart.
9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.
10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

and in conjunction with that:
[Jhn 6:39 KJV]
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Those, and those alone are the sole focus of the Bible

 

[rogerg]

Translated into modern English: " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"

I'm not too bright but that sounds reasonable to me

 

[rogerg]

I've touched on this above and how our world view affects our understanding of the Bible. However, it seems you've undermined your own argument here. Above you dismissed scholars and posted a few passages about false teachers and here you're telling me you use a concordance, which was likely written by a scholar. Why would you use a concordance when you've associated them with false teachers?

I would also argue that you don't use the Bible and a concordance alone. You're here on this forum. You hear things others have said

World view is irreverent to the Bible. I use the Bible to assess the posts written here, not the reverse.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Butch:
Aside: My compliments on your ability to articulate your point of view.

As I said, all means all.

Trivial Aside: My grade school teacher once said to never define a word using the word ... I suppose if that was acceptable I could say I can define every word in the English language (or any language).

Dictionary Definition of ALL: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group ("everyone distributively") or thing ("everyone without exception"). Note that the definition can be of distinct things.
If I say "they ALL came to the store" then it is ambiguous as I didn't clarify that I am referring to a 'thing' or 'group'. I admit that the statement Jesus died for ALL by itself would make me lean towards 'everyone without exception'... but it could also mean all groups: Jews and Gentiles for example.
1 Timothy 1:6 But now, who this “all” should be:

1. whether all people, or
2. all the elect, or
3. some of all sorts, or
4. all of every sort (without distinction), is in debate

Anyways, if you don't see my point .. .so be it.

I suggested that Romans 5:18 could be understood differently.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:18 KJV)

Agreed

Butch Said: Your argument could be reversed on you. Using your argument one could argue that death didn't come to all men. It's the same word for all. So, either death came to all men and the righteousness of one came to all men or death and righteousness came to some.

Well, I would say that you conflate the two ALLs in Romans 5:18 such that both have to either mean "everyone without exception" or "everyone without distributively"; why cannot not one ALL in the verse be "everyone without exception" and the other ALL be "everyone without distributively". The AMP bible as a note saying the second ALL means "Salvation is available to all people who respond and place their personal trust in Christ." which would be 'distributively'.
This is getting very wordy (lost in the details ... sorry about that.

Hmmm.... you didn't comment on the empirical evidence:
Premise 1: Faith is required for salvation
Premise 2: Faith cometh by hearing the gospel
Premise 3: Billions of people have died that have not heard the gospel
Conclusion: Christ did not taste death for every man (ALL)... thus ALL does not mean everyone without exception; rather, everyone distributively.

 

[rogerg]

Regarding the other passage, it's talking about how the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. It doesn't say this is how we interpret. I would ask how exactly does one compare spiritual things with spiritual. Remember, Spiritual means, qualities of the breath. What does, comparing qualities of of the breath with qualities of the breath, mean?

"comparing qualities of breath..." is your definition not mine. Spiritual is that which exists in the spiritual realm and is spiritual truth, not earthly truth. So what that says is that the Bible informs on two different levels: the earthly (carnal) and the spiritual - both can be (and usually are) in the same verse at the same time.
We should look for the spiritual and compare it to the spiritual of other verses we think reverent,
For example: fasts, or fasting. Most believe that a fast is the denial of something we desire on the bodily level, and there are many examples of its use in the Bible (so I don't think I need to list them here- just know they exist). However when we look further to understand how God uses it - by comparing spiritual with spiritual-- the below verses are found (note many symbolic terms are within them, so they too need further analysis to come to a complete understanding). Please note that NOTHING outside of the Bible itself has yet been used, or has been needed, or will be needed, to gain understanding. I don't think many (if any) external sources would even begin to consider the below.

[Isa 58:5 KJV]
5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? [is it] to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes [under him]? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

[Isa 58:6-8 KJV]
6 [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.

So, God informs that if we should desire to fast then it should focus on the sharing of the Gospel, not denying ourselves earthly pleasure to please Him. If you think about it, without having done that comparison, few, not even "experts" would probably ever come to that conclusion.

 

[Butch5]

rogerg

Guess I must have missed how a "world view" affects our understanding? Depending on what you specifically mean, I can't see how a "world view" enters into the issue at all? The Bible is concerned exclusively with the spiritual, not the earthly

Hi Roger,

Our worldview is how we perceive the world. For instance, some people believe man is a spirit living in a flesh body and that when he dies this spirit goes on living. Some people believe that man is nothing but flesh. These are two different views of man that are part of a person's worldview. The ultimate destiny of a man is different for each of these people. One believes man lives on, one believes he dies. Now, suppose we're reading Scripture and we come across a passage that says someone died. Each of these two people will have a different picture of what happened. One will conclude that the man's body died but that the man lives on. The other would conclude that the man no longer exists. Both read the same passage but draw different conclusions. These conclusions are based on what they brought to the text. The Bible didn't say the man lived on or that he ceased to exist. It just said he died. What each of these people already believed about death determined how they interpreted that passage.

That's what I'm talking about. It's not about the Bible, it's about us. We think, we read, etc. What are our beliefs about, life, death, what a man is, where do the dead go, and a multitude of other things. All of these are things we use to draw conclusions about what we read in Scripture. Going back to the example, the Bible simply said the man died. How we understand death determines what those words mean to us. Did the man cease to exist? Or, is he alive as a spirit somewhere. It's not the Bible that determined what each of these people believe. The Bible simply said the man died. It's their preconceived ideas of what death is that determined how each person understood it.

Don't understand your comment about a concordance? A concordance isn't "written" per se. It simply provides cross-referencing capability- the one I use in online. Please see the following:

"A Bible concordance can be a helpful tool for studying the Bible. A concordance contains an alphabetical index of words used in the Bible and the main Bible references where the word occurs. A Bible concordance is useful in locating passages in the Bible. If you can remember just one word in a verse, you can often find what you’re looking for."

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking commentary, not concordance.

I don't do any of the above.

None? We are all influenced by things. Even if it is at a subconscious level.

Don't think that's correct. I was speaking about was in reference to biblical interpretation. In that regard, all that's really useful is a Bible and a concordance (concordance optional). What else can there be?

For starters, a good understanding of the historical background. As I've posted in a few posts now, much of the New Testament is rooted in the Old. If we don't acknowledge that we're missing a big portion of the Bible. What about the grammar? When we're reading English we're relying on someone else's ability to understand that language and grammar. What if that person(s) is/are wrong? If we can read and translate it ourselves we don't need to rely on others.

That's the whole point in having two or three. While not perfect, three different verses that corroborates an interpretation provides a high level of confidence.

Only if those passages are understood correctly and in context. How can they confirm a doctrine if we're misunderstanding them? If we think it means one thing but it really means something else, how does it confirm our doctrine?

A reply to this could be a thread in itself. Finding multiple passages is the technique for confirming. If found, the odds of that misinterpretation are small. Generally speaking, if it's in error, then confirmation won't be found - that's the point.
Regarding your example about election, I absolutely disagree. There are many verses that support election because election is the correct doctrine. To the contrary, John 1:9 does not provide any verification whatsoever. By your reference to John 1:9,you've fallen into the exact trap I warned about: one verse shouldn't be used for confirmation. Other verses are needed in addition to it to acquire full understanding. Here's another of those directions the Bible provides for (its own )interpretation: that the Bible was written with parables and they must be considered when trying to interpret any of its verses. It appears (at least) by your reference to John 1:9 the way you used it, that you didn't do that.
If someone looks for a context over and above that which the Bible provides for the doctrine in question, then an inappropriate level has been added to the analysis

[Mar 12:1 KJV] 1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A [certain] man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about [it], and digged [a place for] the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
[Luk 8:10 KJV] 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

And what about women?
[Jhn 1:9 KJV] 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Roger, again, my point is that the passages have to be understood correctly. You brought up the doctrine of Election. Yes, it's a Biblical doctrine. However, it's not the doctrine that Reformed believers claim it is. I would ask you, how many passages do you have to confirm election? Then I would ask you to show me a single passage of Scripture that shows people are elected to be saved. This is my point. You may have many passages that confirm election. However, the doctrine isn't what Reformed believers claim it is. Therefore, those passages that supposedly "confirm" election aren't confirming the Reformed doctrine of Election which is salvation. So, two, three, or three hundred verses of confirmation don't confirm the doctrine. This is the point, they "MUST" be understood correctly.

Regarding John 1:9. My position on that hasn't been formed from that single verse. There are plenty of passages that show all can believe. My point in that verse is that it states unequivocally that all can believe. There is no way around what it says. One has to either accept it or pretend it doesn't say what it says. But, it shows beyond doubt that all can believer. Romans 5:18 also shows that Christ came for all men.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:18 KJV)

Anthropos, is used of men and women.

Using it also puts its user in violation of 2 Tim 3:16 & 17. Another one of those directions the Bible provides us for its interpretation. If someone uses something outside of the Bible itself to understand the Bible, does that then make them more furnisheder? We are told by the "throughly furnished" part to depend upon the Bible and the Bible alone. Nothing else is required. If we choose to ignore that admonition, we could be placing ourselves into jeopardy

[2Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[2Ti 3:17 KJV] 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Well for the time being I'll stop but will definitely resume a little later to continue

I don't believe your brain is part of the Bible, thus you are using something other than the Bible. You have to assume your brain correctly understands the Bible and what it reads. Does your brain have all of the necessary information to properly determine what the Bible means? You're reading someone else's understanding of the Bible. What if their understanding is off here or there? The only way you could truly use only the Bible would be to get the original manuscripts written by the writers. Those are no longer available. That means you're reading copies and translations. A translation is filtered through the minds of the writers.

What I'm getting at is that often we have this idea that "the Bible says", and we set that in stone. However, have we ever given thought to the idea that maybe we misunderstand it? If so, then maybe the Bible, "doesn't really say".

 

[rogerg]

rogerg



Hi Roger,

Our worldview is how we perceive the world. For instance, some people believe man is a spirit living in a flesh body and that when he dies this spirit goes on living. Some people believe that man is nothing but flesh. These are two different views of man that are part of a person's worldview. The ultimate destiny of a man is different for each of these people. One believes man lives on, one believes he dies. Now, suppose we're reading Scripture and we come across a passage that says someone died. Each of these two people will have a different picture of what happened. One will conclude that the man's body died but that the man lives on. The other would conclude that the man no longer exists. Both read the same passage but draw different conclusions. These conclusions are based on what they brought to the text. The Bible didn't say the man lived on or that he ceased to exist. It just said he died. What each of these people already believed about death determined how they interpreted that passage.

That's what I'm talking about. It's not about the Bible, it's about us. We think, we read, etc. What are our beliefs about, life, death, what a man is, where do the dead go, and a multitude of other things. All of these are things we use to draw conclusions about what we read in Scripture. Going back to the example, the Bible simply said the man died. How we understand death determines what those words mean to us. Did the man cease to exist? Or, is he alive as a spirit somewhere. It's not the Bible that determined what each of these people believe. The Bible simply said the man died. It's their preconceived ideas of what death is that determined how each person understood it.



Sorry, my bad. I was thinking commentary, not concordance.



None? We are all influenced by things. Even if it is at a subconscious level.



For starters, a good understanding of the historical background. As I've posted in a few posts now, much of the New Testament is rooted in the Old. If we don't acknowledge that we're missing a big portion of the Bible. What about the grammar? When we're reading English we're relying on someone else's ability to understand that language and grammar. What if that person(s) is/are wrong? If we can read and translate it ourselves we don't need to rely on others.



Only if those passages are understood correctly and in context. How can they confirm a doctrine if we're misunderstanding them? If we think it means one thing but it really means something else, how does it confirm our doctrine?



Roger, again, my point is that the passages have to be understood correctly. You brought up the doctrine of Election. Yes, it's a Biblical doctrine. However, it's not the doctrine that Reformed believers claim it is. I would ask you, how many passages do you have to confirm election? Then I would ask you to show me a single passage of Scripture that shows people are elected to be saved. This is my point. You may have many passages that confirm election. However, the doctrine isn't what Reformed believers claim it is. Therefore, those passages that supposedly "confirm" election aren't confirming the Reformed doctrine of Election which is salvation. So, two, three, or three hundred verses of confirmation don't confirm the doctrine. This is the point, they "MUST" be understood correctly.

Regarding John 1:9. My position on that hasn't been formed from that single verse. There are plenty of passages that show all can believe. My point in that verse is that it states unequivocally that all can believe. There is no way around what it says. One has to either accept it or pretend it doesn't say what it says. But, it shows beyond doubt that all can believer. Romans 5:18 also shows that Christ came for all men.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:18 KJV)

Anthropos, is used of men and women.



I don't believe your brain is part of the Bible, thus you are using something other than the Bible. You have to assume your brain correctly understands the Bible and what it reads. Does your brain have all of the necessary information to properly determine what the Bible means? You're reading someone else's understanding of the Bible. What if their understanding is off here or there? The only way you could truly use only the Bible would be to get the original manuscripts written by the writers. Those are no longer available. That means you're reading copies and translations. A translation is filtered through the minds of the writers.

What I'm getting at is that often we have this idea that "the Bible says", and we set that in stone. However, have we ever given thought to the idea that maybe we misunderstand it? If so, then maybe the Bible, "doesn't really say".

[Rom 12:2 KJV]
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

[Eph 4:23-25 KJV]
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

The apostle Paul and his worker in the Gospel Silas were with the Bereans, and yet, they chose to seach the Scriptures to see whether that which Paul told them were so, and Paul congratulated them for so doing. Why do you think that was?

[Act 17:11 KJV] 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking commentary, not concordance.

Yeah actually I figured it was something like that

I don't believe your brain is part of the Bible, thus you are using something other than the Bible. You have to assume your brain correctly understands the Bible and what it reads

Please also see Romans and Eph. above. When someone becomes born-again, they receive a renewed mind for understanding, otherwise they fall under the "not given" part(s) following :

[Mat 13:11 KJV]
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

[Mat 19:11 KJV]
11 But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.

[Phl 1:29 KJV]
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

BTW the ability/gift to "believe" has to first be explicitly given to someone by the Holy Spirit before they are able do so. As I think you and other have mentioned on this thread, that in your understanding, it is our work/choice/decision whether or not to believe in/accept Christ. This verse (if we feel we can go by one verse) says otherwise.

 

[Butch5]

[Rom 12:2 KJV]
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

[Eph 4:23-25 KJV]
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

The apostle Paul and his worker in the Gospel Silas were with the Bereans, and yet, they chose to seach the Scriptures to see whether that which Paul told them were so, and Paul congratulated them for so doing. Why do you think that was?

[Act 17:11 KJV] 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.



Yeah actually I figured it was something like that



Please also see Romans and Eph. above. When someone becomes born-again, they receive a renewed mind for understanding, otherwise they fall under the "not given" part(s) following :

[Mat 13:11 KJV]
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

[Mat 19:11 KJV]
11 But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.

[Phl 1:29 KJV]
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

BTW the ability/gift to "believe" has to first be explicitly given to someone by the Holy Spirit before they are able do so. As I think you and other have mentioned on this thread, that in your understanding, it is our work/choice/decision whether or not to believe in/accept Christ. This verse (if we feel we can go by one verse) says otherwise.

Hi Roger,

That renewing of the mind that Paul speaks of... it's something they are to do. He's telling to o that. He's not saying it just happens to them.

Regarding the passages in Matthew, they've been addressed. It was given to the apostles because Israel had been blinded.

Regarding Phil 1:29, can you explain that passage in context? Because it's not talking about believing on Christ, it's talking about God, the Father. He said it was given them, on behalf of Christ to believe on God. In other words they had to come to Christ before God. How does that prove that people the people can't come to Christ?

Again, context.

Regarding the Bereans, The Scriptures were all they had. There were no other resources to check to see if their understanding of Christianity was correct.

 

[Butch5]

"comparing qualities of breath..." is your definition not mine. Spiritual is that which exists in the spiritual realm and is spiritual truth, not earthly truth. So what that says is that the Bible informs on two different levels: the earthly (carnal) and the spiritual - both can be (and usually are) in the same verse at the same time.
We should look for the spiritual and compare it to the spiritual of other verses we think reverent,
For example: fasts, or fasting. Most believe that a fast is the denial of something we desire on the bodily level, and there are many examples of its use in the Bible (so I don't think I need to list them here- just know they exist). However when we look further to understand how God uses it - by comparing spiritual with spiritual-- the below verses are found (note many symbolic terms are within them, so they too need further analysis to come to a complete understanding). Please note that NOTHING outside of the Bible itself has yet been used, or has been needed, or will be needed, to gain understanding. I don't think many (if any) external sources would even begin to consider the below.

[Isa 58:5 KJV]
5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? [is it] to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes [under him]? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

[Isa 58:6-8 KJV]
6 [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward.

So, God informs that if we should desire to fast then it should focus on the sharing of the Gospel, not denying ourselves earthly pleasure to please Him. If you think about it, without having done that comparison, few, not even "experts" would probably ever come to that conclusion.

Hi Roger,

Firstly, I didn't see anything about sharing the Gospel. I didn't see anything about "spiritual". However, getting back to spiritual. The words in Greek and Hebrew mean wind or breath. When translators translate it spirit, they are using a figure of speech. Spirit is a noun and spiritual is an adjective. An adjective give qualities of the noun. If the noun means wind or breath, then the adjective gives qualities of wind or breath. So again, I would ask, what is, and how does, one compare qualities of the wind/breath with qualities of the wind/breath?

Many Christians and I suspect you too believe spirit is a disembodied living being. While that may be the English idea of spirit, the Greek and Hebrew words carry no such connotation. Translators will sometimes refer to angels and demons as spirits. However, that's not because the Greek words for spirit mean a disembodied living being. It's because an angel or demon has qualities that are similar to the wind. Jesus gives us a great example.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (Jn. 3:8 KJV)

Both of the bolded words are the same Greek word. We could translate them both as wind or spirit. Jesus said the wind blows were it wills and you can hear it but cannot see it. It comes and goes without our knowledge. Likewise, Angels and demons come and go as they will. We can't see them, but we can see their interactions in the physical world. Like the wind, we can't see it, but we can see it's physical effects. So, the reason angels and demons are referred to as breaths or spirits, is because they are like the wind.

 

[for_his_glory]

Don't think that's possible:
[Heb 9:27 KJV]
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

A second death would violate this verse.
From what I can see, the Bible doesn't tell us specifically what happened with them... but what we do know, (I think) is that they couldn't be sent back to death. So, I think either they have to be in (or have been in) the new holy city, or still in this world. My vote is for the new holy city

Think about this. Since the New Jerusalem hasn't been ushered down yet and God's Great White Throne judgement has taken place yet and Jesus said no one has ascended up to heaven then those who came out of their graves that day would have eventually died just like Lazarus in whom Jesus raised from the dead.

That verse is not violated as they did die once, but in Jesus' purpose to show others His power and authority who the "Great I Am" was/is gave a sign to others by raising those from the grave that day. It's ridiculous to think they are over 2000 years old still walking the earth.

 

[jaybo]

Hi Roger,

Firstly, I didn't see anything about sharing the Gospel. I didn't see anything about "spiritual". However, getting back to spiritual. The words in Greek and Hebrew mean wind or breath. When translators translate it spirit, they are using a figure of speech. Spirit is a noun and spiritual is an adjective. An adjective give qualities of the noun. If the noun means wind or breath, then the adjective gives qualities of wind or breath. So again, I would ask, what is, and how does, one compare qualities of the wind/breath with qualities of the wind/breath?

Many Christians and I suspect you too believe spirit is a disembodied living being. While that may be the English idea of spirit, the Greek and Hebrew words carry no such connotation. Translators will sometimes refer to angels and demons as spirits. However, that's not because the Greek words for spirit mean a disembodied living being. It's because an angel or demon has qualities that are similar to the wind. Jesus gives us a great example.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (Jn. 3:8 KJV)

Both of the bolded words are the same Greek word. We could translate them both as wind or spirit. Jesus said the wind blows were it wills and you can hear it but cannot see it. It comes and goes without our knowledge. Likewise, Angels and demons come and go as they will. We can't see them, but we can see their interactions in the physical world. Like the wind, we can't see it, but we can see it's physical effects. So, the reason angels and demons are referred to as breaths or spirits, is because they are like the wind.

What are your credentials as a translator? As I have said before, translating an ancient Greek work into modern English is a difficult process, best left to committees of academics (since there is often disagreement). Judging from your post I have a hard time accepting your version.

 

[Butch5]

Fastfredy0

Butch:
Aside: My compliments on your ability to articulate your point of view.

Thank you!

Trivial Aside: My grade school teacher once said to never define a word using the word ... I suppose if that was acceptable I could say I can define every word in the English language (or any language).

I agree, It was kind of tongue and cheek

Dictionary Definition of ALL

: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group ("everyone distributively") or thing ("everyone without exception"). Note that the definition can be of distinct things.

If I say "they ALL came to the store" then it is ambiguous as I didn't clarify that I am referring to a 'thing' or 'group'. I admit that the statement Jesus died for ALL by itself would make me lean towards 'everyone without exception'... but it could also mean all groups: Jews and Gentiles for example.

1 Timothy 1:6 But now, who this “all” should be:

1. whether all people, or
2. all the elect, or
3. some of all sorts, or
4. all of every sort (without distinction), is in debate

Anyways, if you don't see my point .. .so be it.

I see your point, and I agree all can be used differently. My only point is that it means the totality of.

Butch Said: Your argument could be reversed on you. Using your argument one could argue that death didn't come to all men. It's the same word for all. So, either death came to all men and the righteousness of one came to all men or death and righteousness came to some.

Well, I would say that you conflate the two ALLs in Romans 5:18 such that both have to either mean "everyone without exception" or "everyone without distributively"; why cannot not one ALL in the verse be "everyone without exception" and the other ALL be "everyone without distributively". The AMP bible as a note saying the second ALL means "Salvation is available to all people who respond and place their personal trust in Christ." which would be 'distributively'.

This is getting very wordy (lost in the details ... sorry about that.

How would Paul's contrast be upheld? He contrasts what came about through Adam with what came about through Christ. He contrasts condemnation with righteousness and death with life. How would you explain that contrast if all doesn't mean the same thing in both places?

Hmmm.... you didn't comment on the empirical evidence:

Premise 1: Faith is required for salvation

Premise 2: Faith cometh by hearing the gospel

Premise 3: Billions of people have died that have not heard the gospel

Conclusion: Christ did not taste death for every man (ALL)... thus ALL does not mean everyone without exception; rather, everyone distributively.

Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted this addressed. I thought you were just making an assertion. Firstly, we're not told what happens to those who haven't heard. I'm not sure we could use that to determine what happens to them. However, we do know that Enoch walked with God, yet as far as we know he didn't hear the Gospel. We do know though what happens to those who do hear the Gospel.

 

[rogerg]

Hey Butch5

That renewing of the mind that Paul speaks of... it's something they are to do. He's telling to o that. He's not saying it just happens to them.

Don't think so. How can a whole, complete mind that needs renewing, renew itself? It was "given" to them as the verses tell us. Some greater force external to themselves had to instill (or give) it within them

Regarding the passages in Matthew, they've been addressed. It was given to the apostles because Israel had been blinded.

Everyone is blinded until born-again - Jews, Gentiles, everyone. Regardless of who is spoken about, the lesson is for everyone: that until born again, we're blind

Regarding Phil 1:29, can you explain that passage in context? Because it's not talking about believing on Christ, it's talking about God, the Father. He said it was given them, on behalf of Christ to believe on God. In other words they had to come to Christ before God. How does that prove that people the people can't come to Christ?

Wait -- I'm not sure of what your point is? Christ IS God -- He is the Word of God. Faith in one is faith in the other;
the two are inseparable

[Jhn 14:8-9 KJV]
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

[Luk 1:47 KJV] 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
[Luk 2:11 KJV] 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
[Act 13:23 KJV] 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
[Heb 1:8 KJV] 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

the word "Saviour" can be seen linking Christ to God, and visa versa. There aren't two Saviours.
No disrespect, but if you don't believe/understand that, you may be missing a very large portion of the Gospel.

Actually, it's very difficult for me to believe you think otherwise- so, guess I'm confused.
You do believe Christ is God, right?

Again, context.

Sorry Butch5, not to be rude, but except for a very few, limited situations, I don't agree with the context argument you make.

Regarding the Bereans, The Scriptures were all they had. There were no other resources to check to see if their understanding of Christianity was correct.

They had the apostle Paul (a pretty authoritative resource since we can see that God Himself chose/appointed him), and Silas, no slouch himself. Yet they congratulated the Bereans for confirming against Scripture, what they had told them.


All that matters for the sake of the discussion relative to renewing/spiritual wisdom, is that it was "given" to them

 

[Butch5]

World view is irreverent to the Bible. I use the Bible to assess the posts written here, not the reverse.

Roger,

It's not irrelevant. It's the way you think. It's the way everyone thinks. I may be wrong but you don't seem to want to admit that your brain determines how you understand things. You may look at the Bible alone, however, your understanding of it is formed by the things you've learned in your life. That's the way it is for everyone. No living person can get away from that. It's just the way it is.

 

[Butch5]

What are your credentials as a translator? As I have said before, translating an ancient Greek work into modern English is a difficult process, best left to committees of academics (since there is often disagreement). Judging from your post I have a hard time accepting your version.

If you look at just about any lexicon you'll see that they all agree. Neshamah, ruach, noe, and pnuema, mean wind or breath. The translation spirit is usually somewhere down the list.

 

[rogerg]

It's not irrelevant. It's the way you think. It's the way everyone thinks. I may be wrong but you don't seem to want to admit that your brain determines how you understand things.

It does determine how we see things - I agree with you on that, The difference between us is that you see the mind relative to natural man, I see it relative to those born-again. Totally different lenses. God grants faith to those born-again and through/by that faith He leads the mind into spiritual wisdom.

[Phl 2:13 KJV] 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.