Tasted Death for every Man !

[Episcopius]

Christ tasted death for ALL (PAS).

Only Calvinists who propose their mythical LIMITED ATONEMENT want to bark at the use of "every man" for ALL.

Gosh, it makes me nauseous to think of this cancer which is Calvinism.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Christ tasted death for ALL (PAS).

Only Calvinists who propose their mythical LIMITED ATONEMENT want to bark at the use of "every man" for ALL.

Gosh, it makes me nauseous to think of this cancer which is Calvinism.

Christ tasted death for ALL. "All" being ambiguous. The dictionary define ALL as:
used to refer to the whole quantity OR extent of a particular group or thing. It is obvious ALL cannot mean everyone without exception as we are saved by faith, faith requires knowledge of Christ and billions of people have died that have not hear of Christ. Thus ALL must mean all groups (possibly gentiles and Jews).

The remainder of his statement lacks foundation and intellectual maturity.

 

[Butch5]

One of the reasons for the confusing on this subject is becau is e many if not most have an incorrect understanding of the Atonement

Christ tasted death for ALL. "All" being ambiguous. The dictionary define ALL as:
used to refer to the whole quantity OR extent of a particular group or thing. It is obvious ALL cannot mean everyone without exception as we are saved by faith, faith requires knowledge of Christ and billions of people have died that have not hear of Christ. Thus ALL must mean all groups (possibly gentiles and Jews).

The remainder of his statement lacks foundation and intellectual maturity.

Actually, it can mean all without exception. The difference lies in your view of the Atonement.

 

[Fastfredy0]

One of the reasons for the confusing on this subject is becau is e many if not most have an incorrect understanding of the Atonement

Well, definitions are the foundation of argumentation ... agreed.
Aside: I don't think the word 'atonement' is found in the N.T.

Actually, it can mean all without exception.

I agree .... ALL can mean everyone without exception ... or it can mean every group (everyone without distinction).

The difference lies in your view of the Atonement.

The truth lies in explicit verses on a particular topic.

 

[Butch5]

Well, definitions are the foundation of argumentation ... agreed.
Aside: I don't think the word 'atonement' is found in the N.T.


I agree .... ALL can mean everyone without exception ... or it can mean every group (everyone without distinction).


The truth lies in explicit verses on a particular topic.

The reason you say all can mean all without exception is because if your view if the Atonement. Holding to Penal Atonement forces one to say all doesn't mean all

 

[Serving Zion]

okay, did you understand them ? What are they ?

I see that you have asserted the following points:

• The writer of Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus tasted death for them all.
• The word used for "all [of them (implied)] is "pantos" παντὸς that does not identify the group of which "all" belong.
• The translator who adds "men" in order to say that He tasted death "for all men" is introducing a misleading expression. You have proceeded to demonstrate that assertion by showing how other scriptures appear to conflict with that view:
• The writer of Hebrews 2:9 also wrote Hebrews 9:28, which says that Jesus Christ was brought to bear the sins of many. There you are inferring that the purpose of the "offering up" of the life of Jesus Christ (ie His crucifixion) is the same as His having "tasted death" in Hebrews 2:9 and therefore you are drawing the conclusion that the entire purpose of the death of Jesus by crucifixion is in order to "bear the sins of" them that are included in the "all" of Hebrews 2:9.
• You have shown Hebrews 2:10 that names the ones of whom Christ's sufferings "brings into glory" as being "sons". In so doing, you infer that His death by crucifixion is the named suffering. You posit that the ones who are brought into glory in this verse comprise the whole that is named as the παντὸς (pantos/"all") in Hebrews 2:9.
• You have shown Isaiah 53:11 in the context of this view in order to suggest that the crucifixion was foreseen by the prophetic words of the prophet Isaiah, thereby proving your inference that the atonement of the sins of the παντὸς is prescribed as necessitating the death of Jesus Christ by means of suffering (or at least "bearing the sins of them").

It would be good if you can confirm whether it appears to you that I have understood the points of the opening post and then tell me what you are trying to achieve by making those points because you didn't clearly state the reason for which you have thought it necessary to persuade the community to acknowledge them. I'm legitimately unsure what you had hoped to achieve by making this thread and I saw it had got long fast so I have asked for that clarification in order to see whether I might be capable of contributing value.

 

[Serving Zion]

I will help you out. I am 99% sure brightfame52 doesn't believe in universalism based on his previous posts.

That doesn't help at all. I actually don't know anyone who does believe in Universal Salvation, only that there is such record of people who have had their views named as such.

 

[Serving Zion]

The words "tasted death for all men" couldn't be clearer. There was a penalty for sins committed and Jesus paid the price for that penalty. Therefore, "all men' -- meaning all people -- have had the penalty for their sins paid for. The missing factor is that each person has to accept that Jesus' death paid the penalty for their own sin. If they refuse to accept His sacrifice on their behalf then they are still required to pay the price: death and eternal separation from God.

I understand that the gift requires faith in order to exercise it and in course of process to receive it. But does that negate the meaning of "all" for the sum of those who do not receive the gift by faith? Or is He able to still make value of His "tasting of death for them" even though they do not go the way that leads to life (ie: His tasting of death would need to work against their salvation). I think it is feasible to entertain that question and also to consider the value of following its implications (eg: Matthew 23:34-35).

 

[Fastfredy0]

The reason you say all can mean all without exception is because if your view if the Atonement. Holding to Penal Atonement forces one to say all doesn't mean all

Aside: I think we are talking about Hebrews 2:9
You misunderstand me. I am saying the word ALL ('everyone' being of similar use) can have 2 meanings: Everyone without exception OR everyone with distinction (groups of people). The dictionary concurs with two possible understandings of the word all.
Dictionary: used to refer to the whole quantity OR extent of a particular group or thing.
Given this background information about the word ALL (or the word 'everyone') ... every time I see ALL I know it is ambiguous and therefore seek another source to clarify.

Example: Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men [everyone] ... since I know the Bible teaches some people will go to hell, I know the meaning of "ALL" in Romans 5:18 does not mean "everyone without exception". Now, if the Bible consisted of only this verse, then I would not know with 100% confidence what ALL meant, though my bias would 'vote for' everyone without exception as I like/prefer that outcome.

 

[jaybo]

I understand that the gift requires faith in order to exercise it and in course of process to receive it. But does that negate the meaning of "all" for the sum of those who do not receive the gift by faith? Or is He able to still make value of His "tasting of death for them" even though they do not go the way that leads to life (ie: His tasting of death would need to work against their salvation). I think it is feasible to entertain that question and also to consider the value of following its implications (eg: Matthew 23:34-35).

In order for there to be a gift it requires two actions: there must be a giver and there must be a recipient. If I have a gift for you but you won't receive it then it's of no value to you. Each person must accept that Jesus paid the penalty for their sin. If they don't then His death has no effect; they are guilty.

 

[Butch5]

Aside: I think we are talking about Hebrews 2:9
You misunderstand me. I am saying the word ALL ('everyone' being of similar use) can have 2 meanings: Everyone without exception OR everyone with distinction (groups of people). The dictionary concurs with two possible understandings of the word all.
Dictionary: used to refer to the whole quantity OR extent of a particular group or thing.
Given this background information about the word ALL (or the word 'everyone') ... every time I see ALL I know it is ambiguous and therefore seek another source to clarify.

Example: Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men [everyone] ... since I know the Bible teaches some people will go to hell, I know the meaning of "ALL" in Romans 5:18 does not mean "everyone without exception". Now, if the Bible consisted of only this verse, then I would not know with 100% confidence what ALL meant, though my bias would 'vote for' everyone without exception as I like/prefer that outcome.

I understand what you're saying. I agree. I'm suggesting all means all, all of the time. The context will define whether it is all of a group or all without distinction. In your example Romans 5:18, I would submit that in both instances all means all without exception. Save i9f course Jesus who never sinned.

 

[jaybo]

Aside: I think we are talking about Hebrews 2:9
You misunderstand me. I am saying the word ALL ('everyone' being of similar use) can have 2 meanings: Everyone without exception OR everyone with distinction (groups of people). The dictionary concurs with two possible understandings of the word all.
Dictionary: used to refer to the whole quantity OR extent of a particular group or thing.
Given this background information about the word ALL (or the word 'everyone') ... every time I see ALL I know it is ambiguous and therefore seek another source to clarify.

Example: Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men [everyone] ... since I know the Bible teaches some people will go to hell, I know the meaning of "ALL" in Romans 5:18 does not mean "everyone without exception". Now, if the Bible consisted of only this verse, then I would not know with 100% confidence what ALL meant, though my bias would 'vote for' everyone without exception as I like/prefer that outcome.

It's obvious that one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all people.

Romans 5:18-19 (NET 2.1), "Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be constituted righteous."

The simple fact remains that each person must accept and believe that Jesus died to pay the penalty for their sin. If they don't accept that then they are guilty and forfeit eternal life. To me, that's not much of a choice!

 

[Fastfredy0]

In order for there to be a gift it requires two actions: there must be a giver and there must be a recipient.

In the case of salvation you missed the third action ... the person must believe and trust in a incredible story of a man who is God rising from the dead ... but wait there's more. God has given everyone a depraved mind such that NO ONE SEEKS GOD; yet he must believe.

The idea that salvation is a 'gift' is an oversimplification to try to:
1) Credit man for saving himself
2) While trying to discredit that #1 from being designated as a work. The dictionary defines a 'work' as a mental of physical effort to achieve a goal (one has to mentally assent to Christ dying and rising from the dead to achieve the goal of salvation).

 

[jaybo]

In the case of salvation you missed the third action ... the person must believe and trust in a incredible story of a man who is God rising from the dead ... but wait there's more. God has given everyone a depraved mind such that NO ONE SEEKS GOD; yet he must believe.

The idea that salvation is a 'gift' is an oversimplification to try to:
1) Credit man for saving himself
2) While trying to discredit that #1 from being designated as a work. The dictionary defines a 'work' as a mental of physical effort to achieve a goal (one has to mentally assent to Christ dying and rising from the dead to achieve the goal of salvation).

Should I believe you or what the Bible clearly says? It's a binary choice; it's either true or false. There is no "third action" biblically.

If you can't accept what Scripture clearly says, don't assume that applies to everyone.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I'm suggesting all means all, all of the time.

I used the dictionary for the meaning of ALL. The dictionary (the accepted authority on the meaning of words says ALL can be understood TWO ways. Saying ALL means ALL has no communicative value. "X" means "X" for every word in every language. This definition conveys no worth ... if it did we wouldn't need dictionaries or not as much.

In your example Romans 5:18, I would submit that in both instances all means all without exception.

I hope you are right for then everyone without exception is heaven bound for we all without exception have been justified. Romans 8:30 He also justified [declared free of the guilt of sin]; and those whom He justified, He also glorified [raising them to a heavenly dignity].
But since WE KNOW that everyone doesn't go to heaven WE KNOW the ALL in Romans 5:18 does NOT mean everyone without exception.

Premise 1: Romans 8:15 All means everyone without exception is justified
Premise 2: Some people go to hell
Premise 3: If you are 'justified' you go to heaven (Romans 8:30)
Conclusion: One or more of the premises is WRONG. (I suggest it's your meaning of ALL)

 

[Serving Zion]

In order for there to be a gift it requires two actions: there must be a giver and there must be a recipient. If I have a gift for you but you won't receive it then it's of no value to you.

It doesn't negate the action of giving though, which is the context of having used the word "gift". Why have you opposed me here?

Each person must accept that Jesus paid the penalty for their sin.

Only if you hold that atonement is made through a Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine, (which is not consistent with scripture).

If they don't then His death has no effect; they are guilty.

I don't think it necessarily has no effect even if they remain guilty. You should listen to the points I made before refuting them.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Should I believe you or what the Bible clearly says?

You should believe both as I am consistent with the Bible.

It's a binary choice; it's either true or false. There is no "third action" biblically.

Your explanation is flawed. I will simplify it.

Premise 1: Christ offers salvation (a gift) to everyone (Per your statement)
Premise 2: Just say "I accept the gift and you are saved" (Per your statement)
Conclusion: When one presents the gospel one just has to say. "Jesus (God) died and rose again and if you say I ACCEPT THE GIFT you are saved".
Response: "Well, that is easy .... I ACCEPT ...That was easy!! Woohooo, I am saved!!! "2

 

[jaybo]

I used the dictionary for the meaning of ALL. The dictionary (the accepted authority on the meaning of words says ALL can be understood TWO ways. Saying ALL means ALL has no communicative value. "X" means "X" for every word in every language. This definition conveys no worth ... if it did we wouldn't need dictionaries or not as much.


I hope you are right for then everyone without exception is heaven bound for we all without exception have been justified. Romans 8:30 He also justified [declared free of the guilt of sin]; and those whom He justified, He also glorified [raising them to a heavenly dignity].
But since WE KNOW that everyone doesn't go to heaven WE KNOW the ALL in Romans 5:18 does NOT mean everyone without exception.

Premise 1: Romans 8:30 All means everyone without exception is justified
Premise 2: Some people go to hell
Premise 3: If you are 'justified' you go to heaven (Romans 8:30)
Conclusion: One or more of the premises is WRONG. (I suggest it's your meaning of ALL)

It couldn't be your interpretation, could it?

Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, [obviously this doesn't mean everyone] because those whom he foreknew [same principle] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined [same principle], he also called; and those he called [same principle], he also justified; and those he justified [same principle], he also glorified.

So your premise clearly contradicts Scripture.

 

[jaybo]

It doesn't negate the action of giving though, which is the context of having used the word "gift". Why have you opposed me here?

Only if you hold that atonement is made through a Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine, (which is not consistent with scripture).

I don't think it necessarily has no effect even if they remain guilty. You should listen to the points I made before refuting them.

I have opposed you here because what you write conflicts with God's Word. I won't accept what you or anyone else says if it conflicts with the Bible.

You may be right in your own eyes; I will pray for "the eyes of your heart" to be opened.

 

[Serving Zion]

I have opposed you here because what you write conflicts with God's Word.

It is against the terms of service to misrepresent another member's views and I find it objectionable that you would accuse me of conflicting with God's Word. I will report this breach of the ToS unless you can show evidence of your accusation: what have I written that conflicts with God's Word, and which of His Word you accuse me of being in conflict with?