Posts
Hebrews 10:10-14: Rebuttal
When I saw this post come across my email, I, at first, was confused at why this one would be chosen. I then read Turretinfan's comments on it and I saw why he would want it to read as he has asserted, but yet, I find it not the point of this passage nor is it feasible. Of course that is my position, so take that with a grain of salt. But, the reason I was perplexed is because I have never heard anyone taking this passage and use it this way. From my reading of Hebrews 10, I have always come to this conclusion, both as a Calvinist and also when I was growing up in the Southern Baptist Churches: Jesus Christ's sacrifice is greater than the bulls and goats because his takes away sin and is the ONE sacrifice to give assurance to believers for their sanctification.
I will be honest, I have not been able to keep up with the comments in TF's post, so forgive me if I am bringing up "old" arguments, but I want to post on how I see this passage playing out and its implications for the elect of God.
What I do see here is Turretinfan making a big jump, exegetically, in the context of the passage. He wants it to read: the offering made was only for those who will be sanctified. The problem is that this is not the point of the verse nor can that be found. He changes some key words in their context to make this happen.
TF: The sacrifice of Christ was offered for particular people; The "τους αγιαζομενους" are those for whom the offering is made.
That is simply not found in the passage itself, but has been added to by TF. Now the second part of both of these statements, I thoroughly agree with as TF states, they are perfected by the offering. This is not going to be argued, but I would argue that this is the actual point of the verse.
The way that this passage reads is simply that those who believe, i.e. sanctified, were sanctified because of the one offering, that is Christ, not the priestly sacrifices of bulls and goats.
Notice in Hebrews 10:1 that it states:
...which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
If we try and make a parallel here, we can see that those who draw near would be the elect who are believers. Remember, here on earth there are two classes of the elect: those who are currently believing and those who will believe. Where was their hope in being cleansed? They thought it was the sacrifices that were made each year.
So, the passage then goes on to say that these sacrifices had no hope of cleansing but, in actuality, a reminder. So, the passage moves on to Christ. It's the same idea, except, now, we see that those who draw near, which are now used with a different term: those who are sanctified (or being sanctified), have confidence because of the one sacrifice that was made (for us that was about 2000 years ago). The sacrifice, the offering of Jesus, is where these people have hope and confidence.
This is the statement being made.
If one believes that the offering that was made 2000 years ago, forever, at that point, made the elect perfect then we have to ask the reason for duty faith. I am not sure if this is TF's point, so if it is not then we can just skip this.
But, the subject that is being considered here are those that are sanctified, not the elect as a whole. Who are those that are, in actuality, currently sanctified? It is those that are elect that have already believed. What did they believe and where is there hope? On the offering that was made 2000 years ago.
If we take here, that those that are sanctified means the whole of the elect, then we have to ask, "How can an elect person who has not believed be sanctified?" Don't they need to believe first, before they are sanctified? We understand they, in actuality, do, because of Ephesians 2:3 that states:
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Ephesians 2:3
So, if we, as the believing elect, were once the unregenerate elect, then we were not sanctified at the time of the cross, but at the time of Christ's imputation of righteousness at faith.
So, again, the point of this passage is not to point to the offering being made for a particular people, but just the opposite. It is so that the particular people can look to the offering made and have assurance that they have been paid for, that they have been sanctified. But this assurance doesn't happen until faith.
Calvin would agree with me here as well, and so do many major commenters on this passage.
He has hitherto labored enough, and more than enough, in defending the priesthood of Christ; the conclusion then is, that the ancient priesthood, which is inconsistent with this, has ceased; for all the saints find a full consecration in the one offering of Christ. At the same time the word teteleioken,which I render “has consecrated,” may yet be rendered “has perfected;” but I prefer the former meaning, because he treats here of sacred things. By saying, them who are sanctified, he includes all the children of God; and he reminds us that the grace of sanctification is sought elsewhere in vain.
I will be honest, I have not been able to keep up with the comments in TF's post, so forgive me if I am bringing up "old" arguments, but I want to post on how I see this passage playing out and its implications for the elect of God.
What I do see here is Turretinfan making a big jump, exegetically, in the context of the passage. He wants it to read: the offering made was only for those who will be sanctified. The problem is that this is not the point of the verse nor can that be found. He changes some key words in their context to make this happen.
TF: The sacrifice of Christ was offered for particular people; The "τους αγιαζομενους" are those for whom the offering is made.
That is simply not found in the passage itself, but has been added to by TF. Now the second part of both of these statements, I thoroughly agree with as TF states, they are perfected by the offering. This is not going to be argued, but I would argue that this is the actual point of the verse.
The way that this passage reads is simply that those who believe, i.e. sanctified, were sanctified because of the one offering, that is Christ, not the priestly sacrifices of bulls and goats.
Notice in Hebrews 10:1 that it states:
...which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
If we try and make a parallel here, we can see that those who draw near would be the elect who are believers. Remember, here on earth there are two classes of the elect: those who are currently believing and those who will believe. Where was their hope in being cleansed? They thought it was the sacrifices that were made each year.
So, the passage then goes on to say that these sacrifices had no hope of cleansing but, in actuality, a reminder. So, the passage moves on to Christ. It's the same idea, except, now, we see that those who draw near, which are now used with a different term: those who are sanctified (or being sanctified), have confidence because of the one sacrifice that was made (for us that was about 2000 years ago). The sacrifice, the offering of Jesus, is where these people have hope and confidence.
This is the statement being made.
If one believes that the offering that was made 2000 years ago, forever, at that point, made the elect perfect then we have to ask the reason for duty faith. I am not sure if this is TF's point, so if it is not then we can just skip this.
But, the subject that is being considered here are those that are sanctified, not the elect as a whole. Who are those that are, in actuality, currently sanctified? It is those that are elect that have already believed. What did they believe and where is there hope? On the offering that was made 2000 years ago.
If we take here, that those that are sanctified means the whole of the elect, then we have to ask, "How can an elect person who has not believed be sanctified?" Don't they need to believe first, before they are sanctified? We understand they, in actuality, do, because of Ephesians 2:3 that states:
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Ephesians 2:3
So, if we, as the believing elect, were once the unregenerate elect, then we were not sanctified at the time of the cross, but at the time of Christ's imputation of righteousness at faith.
So, again, the point of this passage is not to point to the offering being made for a particular people, but just the opposite. It is so that the particular people can look to the offering made and have assurance that they have been paid for, that they have been sanctified. But this assurance doesn't happen until faith.
Calvin would agree with me here as well, and so do many major commenters on this passage.
He has hitherto labored enough, and more than enough, in defending the priesthood of Christ; the conclusion then is, that the ancient priesthood, which is inconsistent with this, has ceased; for all the saints find a full consecration in the one offering of Christ. At the same time the word teteleioken,which I render “has consecrated,” may yet be rendered “has perfected;” but I prefer the former meaning, because he treats here of sacred things. By saying, them who are sanctified, he includes all the children of God; and he reminds us that the grace of sanctification is sought elsewhere in vain.
Calvin Heb 10:14.
V. 10 is still closely bound to the quotation: neither θέλημα, προσφορά, nor σῶμα in this sense is part of the epistle’s normal vocabulary. But the author moves away from phrase-by-phrase comment to a statement which not only sums up this whole stage of the argument, but also goes beyond it to state, more explicitly than the quotation, even christologically interpreted, the benefits of Christ’s self-offering for believers, including the author and his readers. With this broadening of the theme there comes a change of time reference: the continuing state (ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν) of believers depends on the once-for-all offering of the body of Christ. The importance of the statement is stressed by the use, for the first time in the epistle (cf. 13:1, 21), of the full name “Jesus Christ”; ἐφάπαξ (→ 7:27) is emphatic by position. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ has lasting effects (ἡγιασμένοι; see Lane 256 n.x)
Vv. 12f. (especially if εἰς τὸ διηνεκές in → v. 12 is taken with what follows) have been concerned with the death and exaltation of Christ himself; v. 14 is concerned with the consequences of this event for believers. Here, as elsewhere in Hebrews (→ 2:10), τελειόω implies the fulfilment of the Christian goal, namely an access to God which was formerly open only to the high priest. Hebrews emphasizes the unique priesthood of Jesus (Vanhoye 1980.242–247), and thus does not speak explicitly of the priesthood of all believers; but he comes close to doing so here, in language which is not only cultic (Bourgin 1959.79–81) but priestly (Zimmermann 1977.116–125, following G. Delling in TDNT 8.83f.). The perfect tense joins with the following phrase to emphasize the permanent effects of Christ’s sacrifice.
Ellingworth, P. (1993). The Epistle to the Hebrews : A commentary on the Greek text. Spine title: Commentary on Hebrews
100 comments:
"Calvin would agree with me ..."
On the contrary, he'd agree with me.
;)
-Turretinfan
But it can be challenging enough to determine whether the Bible agrees with one or both of us, so let's not debate who get's Calvin's Genevan gown just yet.
-Turretinfan
TF:
Very nice...
Touché
:)
Hey Seth,
Thanks for the post, you have taken it in the right direction and drawn the right conclusions as I see them.
Here is the text: For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
We can leave out all questions of tense and nothing changes. Thus I can work with this wording:
By this offering, “the sanctified ones” have been perfected.
Now here is what is interesting, TF does not spell out his logic or the premises. One is left guessing or making assumptions.
I will therefore make the following assumption about his argument and intent:
TF is trying to argue such that this is what we should conclude from his major premise:
Major premise: All for whom the offering is made will be perfected.
Minor premise: The non-elect are not perfected
Conclusion: Therefore the offering was not made for the non-elect.
[Excursus: my assumption is that this is the accurate form of his major premise on the basis that he has said the following:
TF:
The effect of Christ's work is to render those for whom the sacrifice was made perfect
and
The text indicates that the sacrifice perfected those for whom it was offered.
David: It reads to me as if he wants to say, for all and any for whom the offering is made, the result will be perfectedness. For the argument to work the major premise has to be a universal positive or negative: eg, “all men are mortal.”]
Resume: Thats valid but is it sound and true? Is it what the text actually entails?
The problem is, where does this major premise come from? All premises are bounded by the scope of the datum of the text at hand. So here is why we have stressed that believers are in view here.
If the sanctified ones are believers, then all our major premise can include are believers.
So back to the wording of the text. Lets assume that the sanctified ones are believers, lets swap out the expressions.
What I will do is where ever there is a swap out I will indicate this by * *:
Major premise: By this offering, “the sanctified ones” have been perfected
therefore becomes:
Major premise: By this offering, *the believers* have been perfected...
But TF’s major premise is this:
All for whom the offering is made, will be perfected
David: But again, of the subjects of the sanctification are believers (even if believers comprehends all believers, past, present and future), his alleged major premise can never follow. One is not right to simply broaden or enlarge the category to include ‘all for whom the offering was made....’
So there is no true resemblance between the premise of the text, and TF’s major premise.
Moving on:
What is more, lets assume the sanctified ones are the elect, all of them, past, present and future, believing, unbelieving, not-yet-existing, etc, is TF’s major premise justified? No.
For then the major premise still would only look like this:
Major premise: By this offering, *the elect* have been perfected...
But again, TF’s premise is this: all for whom the offering is made will be perfected
Again, there is no true resemblance here.
All that I have said holds even if one asserts that the sanctification and perfection happened on the cross, at the time of the offering.
So what would some syllogisms look like with the alternative readings? Only these could follow:
1)
Major premise: *All believers* for whom the offering is made will be perfected.
Minor premise: John is not perfected
Conclusion: Therefore John is not a believer.
Could one infer that there was no offering for John? No. All that can be said is that John is not in the circle of believers.
2) Major premise: *All the elect* for whom the offering is made will be perfected.
Minor premise: John is not perfected
Conclusion: Therefore John is not elect.
Thats fine too. Could one infer that there was no offering for John? No, for the same reason, all we could conclude is that John is not in the circle of the elect.
So to wrap up, lets grant that the sanctified ones refers to all the elect. The scope of the verse would then only entail this: by this sacrifice, all the elect have been perfected.
[Remember, I am using the expression *all believers* and *all the elect* as a substitute for “the sanctified ones.”]
He has to justify his converting of that into his major premise:
all for whom the offering is made, will be perfected.
He has just assumed that conversion as legitimate. We are asking him to justify it first.
I am hoping, Seth, that TF will see the problem. Its been my experience that many do not see the problem even after its been spotlighted for them.
So with regard to the alleged major premise “All for whom the offering is made will be perfected,” where does that come from?
I am sure more could be said but thats a start.
David
Btw, my "no republication" clause still applies.
I do appreciate gracious compliance, btw.
David
David,
I appreciate the attempt to put this into syllogistic form, though I think you inadvertantly swapped a few things around.
Rather than squabble line-by-line, let me restate a main syllogism of the argument (there are certainly others to be made - this is a rich text).
Major P: Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10.
Minor P: The reprobate are not among those perfected, as evidenced by their (definitional) perishing.
Conclusion: The self-sacrifice was not for the reprobate.
I hope that we can agree that the syllogism is not fallacious. That is to say, it's a valid syllogism.
Furthermore, I think we can agree on the truth of the minor premise, if only because it's definitional.
I suppose, then, that your central objection would be to the major premise. In other words, you would deny the major premise and ask for demonstration.
Are we on the same page so far?
If so, I'll continue. If not, let me know, so that we can minimize the talking-past-each-other factor.
-Turretinfan
Hey TF:
TF: I appreciate the attempt to put this into syllogistic form, though I think you inadvertantly swapped a few things around.
TF:
Major P: Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10.
Minor P: The reprobate are not among those perfected, as evidenced by their (definitional) perishing.
Conclusion: The self-sacrifice was not for the reprobate.
David: But your “for whom it is offered” is ambiguous or inconclusive. Now suppose someone like me says there are some for whom there was an offering, yet which are not perfected, citing a text which says the elect for whom the offering was made are perfected is not going to disprove my belief that there may be some for whom the offering is made but yet are not perfected. For you to preclude that possibility, you will need to say, "all whom the offering is made are perfected" assuming you actually want to prove to me the impossibility of there being some for whom the offering was made who are not perfected. You have to get to that.
But now the text does not give you that. All it says–assuming the sanctified ones are the elect–is that these ones, who you claim are the elect, for whom the offering is made are perfected.
The text is not saying anything about anyone else the offering may have been made for.
Can you see the problem? The text at hand can only sustain a predication regarding them.
So let me modify your premise so that it accurately reflects the scope of the verse:
Major P: Christ has perfected these elect for whom his self-sacrifice was offered.
The offering here is stated as being made for the elect, which by it are perfected.
None of us have any problem here.
But that does not entail: all for whom the offering is made are perfected. No.
TF: I hope that we can agree that the syllogism is not fallacious. That is to say, it's a valid syllogism.
David: Well its only valid if you properly distribute the major premise (as far as I understand the nature of a valid syllogism, I could be wrong but I would like to see some documutation and examples).
TF: Furthermore, I think we can agree on the truth of the minor premise, if only because it's definitional.
David: Sure.
TF: I suppose, then, that your central objection would be to the major premise. In other words, you would deny the major premise and ask for demonstration.
David: Yes. You need to argue to that. You need to prove that. But this text is specific: the scope of the referents are the elect (assuming the sanctified ones refers to all the elect).
David: Thus all one could conclude is that the one who is not perfected is not part of the elected ones for whom the offering was made.
TF: Are we on the same page so far?
David: I think so: if you understand what I am asking of you.
David
David,
Before we get to the question of whether the major premise is correct, we need to make sure the major premise is understood.
Recall that I wrote:
Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10.
I don't think that's ambiguous, but for some reason it seems you do.
Apparently you think that: "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." could mean "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
I'm curious about how you reach that conclusion, as it does not seem to follow to me.
Please try to help me understand why you think the statement "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." is ambiguous.
So far, I've seen you assert that (or something like that) a few times, but I'm not really sure how "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." can reasonably convey as one of its meanings "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
On the other hand, if you are simply getting into the question of whether in fact the passage supports the premise, just say so.
So, what I am asking from you is to select either
1) The statement "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." is itself ambiguous;
or
2) I disagree that the verse supports that statement;
or
3) You[TF]'ve (otherwise) given me[DP] a false dichotomy (preferably with explanation as to what option I omitted).
Presumably the issue of ambiguity is what's contributing to the issue of syllogistic validity. If you think that's a separate issue, please say so.
-Turretinfan
TF:
Let me jump in to show you where I think David might be getting at, or at least I know where I am getting at with your statements.
You said
"Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
What I am asking, and asked in my post was, "Where do you get this in the text that those sanctified are the only ones offered?"
I don't see that being said in the text anywhere.
You seem to have it as a "if a then b argument."
If I am reading you right
Seth,
If you're right, then I think David is merely objecting to the accuracy of the major premise, not asserting that it is itself ambiguous.
If so, we can proceed.
If not, I'd like to know why David thinks its ambiguous, so we can clear that up before we proceed.
-Turretinfan
TF said:
Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10.
I don't think that's ambiguous, but for some reason it seems you do.
Apparently you think that: "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." could mean "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
David: I don’t know where that last came from exactly.
I am asking for exactly clarification. I assume that by this expression:
“Those for whom the offering was made were perfected.”
is: All those for whom the offering is made perfected.”
TF I'm curious about how you reach that conclusion, as it does not seem to follow to me.
David: I don’t think I am communicating that “Christ has perfected some of those for whom the offering was made, as a proposition derivable from this verse.
I do believe that some for whom the offering is made are not finally perfected: if that is simply the question, yes. But I am not saying this verse proves that.
TF: Please try to help me understand why you think the statement "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." is ambiguous.
David: For I want to be sure you are saying ALL those for whom the offering was made were perfected.
I see this verse as saying this: These ones [whoever these ones are exactly: believers or elect en toto] have been perfected by this offering.
Thats all this verse is saying.
TF: So far, I've seen you assert that (or something like that) a few times, but I'm not really sure how "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." can reasonably convey as one of its meanings "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
David: I don’t believe I have ever said that the point of Heb 10:14, its logic, is that Christ has not perfected some of those for whom the offering was made.
TF: On the other hand, if you are simply getting into the question of whether in fact the passage supports the premise, just say so.
David: I have, like 5 times already. :-)
TF: So, what I am asking from you is to select either
1) The statement "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." is itself ambiguous;
David: Yes, because the sanctified ones can be a sub-set of those for whom the offering is made. Thats the point you want to preclude. So I am reading you as saying, therefore: All those for whom the offering is made are perfected. You need that for the syllogism to work.
All those for whom the offering was made are perfected
The non-elect are not perfected.
Therefore, the offering was not for the non-elect.
Cut cut
next comment:
TF: If you're right, then I think David is merely objecting to the accuracy of the major premise, not asserting that it is itself ambiguous.
David: Yes, and that I would like clarification.
TF: If so, we can proceed. If not, I'd like to know why David thinks its ambiguous, so we can clear that up before we proceed.
David: I would like to be certain that for the purposes of the argument you mean ALL those for whom the offering is made are sanctified as your major premise. If you want to simply use “ those for whom...” thats fine, as long as I am not incorrect in interpreting that as “all for whom it is offered...”
So like this:
Men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
therefore Socrates is mortal.
But which men? Some men? All men? Some men may not be mortal. How do I know that Socrates is not part of the group that are not mortal? For the conclusion to be certain, you need a universal quantifier there. So the standard format is:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
If all the premises are true, the conclusion has to follow.
I just would like to be sure that by the phrase “for those for whom the offering is made” you mean “all those for whom the offering is made,” cos I want to know who those are? Is it all of the ones for whom the offering is made, or some of those for whom the offering is made.
David
Seth: What I am asking, and asked in my post was, "Where do you get this in the text that those sanctified are the only ones offered?"
David: Yes, where does one get from this text that the only the sanctified ones have had an offering made in their behalf?
David
David:
I'm sorry you didn't feel you could subscribe to one of the two options I gave you.
You wrote:
"I would like to be certain that for the purposes of the argument you mean ALL those for whom the offering is made are sanctified as your major premise. If you want to simply use “ those for whom...” thats fine, as long as I am not incorrect in interpreting that as “all for whom it is offered...”"
I answer:
Is there any other reasonable interpretation of what I wrote than that one?
If not, it's not ambiguous, and having dispelled the myth of ambiguity we can move on. If so, say so, and explain why you think so.
I'm ready to move on to the substance as soon as we get past these formalities.
-Turretinfan
TF:
Seriously? David is making sure before we move on that you mean this:
ALL those for whom the offering is made are sanctified as your major premise
Why can't you just answer, "yes, that's what I mean?"
I think David showed you why he asked you this by stating:
Men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
therefore Socrates is mortal.
But which men? Some men? All men? Some men may not be mortal. How do I know that Socrates is not part of the group that are not mortal? For the conclusion to be certain, you need a universal quantifier there. So the standard format is:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
He is just making sure. He doesn't, nor do I, want to move on without making sure I know exactly what you are asserting.
Not sure why this is so hard to simply say yes to.
TF,
your reaction is strange.
You should be able to just say "yes, David, for the purpose of my argument, thats what I mean, all those for whom the offering is made are perfected."
Can you acknowledge at least then that all this text is saying is: These ones for whom the offering was made were perfected?
David
What a minute, Seth, do you to think that "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." could mean "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
If so, ok, we'll have to deal with that.
Otherwise, where's the ambiguity. In other words, what else could the phrase mean?
-Turretinfan
No, David, you're the one who asserted ambiguity.
I'm questioning your assertion, and you're not giving anything to back it up.
How about you just withdraw your assertion of ambiguity?
-Turretinfan
Hey Seth,
to me its like this:
Australians are mean.
David is an Australian.
Therefore David is mean.
Now, its a common idiom to paint with broad brush strokes where in we know that when a man says an indefinite proposition he may not mean all.
Eg, "I love Carrots." But I dont love this one, cos its too small. I dont love this cos its too long.
I dont know of a proper syllogism that can work without the clarity stated in the major premise.
Eg: All men are sinners.
John is a man.
Therefore John is a sinner.
If I say men are sinners, I might not mean every man is a sinner. I might, I might not. You would not know for sure given the complexities of language etc. You would not know how to extend it properly.
David
David
David,
The statement:
"Australians are illogical"
Could reasonably be taken to mean merely "Australians generally are illogical."
Are you suggesting by bringing up this broad-brushstroke way of speaking that:
"Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." could mean "Christ has perfected MOST OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."????
If so, ok, we'll deal with that.
If not, why bother bringing up the excuse?
-Turretinfan
TF,
Surely you can grant that a human finite man may not be sure exactly what you mean and so want to be exactly sure here.
I have given examples already wherein a syllogism or a non distributed or quantified phrase can be ambiguous.
And it really does look to me that you are saying, for all whom the offering is made were perfected. I just want confirmation cos you have not expressed it that way exactly.
I dont think this is an unreasonable request on my part. What would you lose by acceding to my request?
David
This is becoming really ridiculous, maybe on both of our parts...not really sure at this point...
How about this.
TF: Do you believe the following? Yes or No?:
Christ has perfected allthose for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10
David,
So far I've asked you several times in several ways to back up your false claim that my statement of the matter was ambiguous.
I've illustrated that the "australians are illogical" broad brush-stroke analogy doesn't work, because no one would reasonably think that I'm using broad brush-strokes in my statement in any analogous way.
So, that fig leaf is gone.
What's left?
Do you have any other basis upon which to assert that the statement is ambiguous? If not, lets move on.
-Turretinfan
TF:
"Australians are illogical"
Could reasonably be taken to mean merely "Australians generally are illogical."
Are you suggesting by bringing up this broad-brushstroke way of speaking that:
"Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." could mean "Christ has perfected MOST OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."????
David: TF, all I want is to be sure that the statement “for all whom the offering is made were perfected,” accurately reflects your “for those for whom the offering is made were perfected.”
As it is, who those are for whom the offering was made, may or may not be identical with the specific people identified in Heb 10:14: it may be broader. So, if you say “all those for whom the offering is made were perfected” does accurately reflect your “for those for whom the offering is made were perfect” I can then assume that the proposition “all for whom the offering is made were perfect” is something you believe is derivable from Heb 10:14.
TF: If so, ok, we'll deal with that.
If not, why bother bringing up the excuse?
David: You know, Paul says love believes all things, so why imply I am just making an excuse?
David
TF:
I believe you are being ambiguous so that should be enough...
You can call me irrational, that is fine. But I wanted your assertion to be clear, for me, so I could move on.
David,
It's astounding to me that you cannot simply acknowledge that you were wrong to assert that "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10." is ambiguous.
It is not ambiguous. Not in the least. There's no two different things it could mean, such that inserting an "all" into the sentence would change anything.
You made the false charge of ambiguity, and I'm asking you politely, but firmly, to withdraw that charge, seeing that there's no reasonable basis for you to be confused about what the sentence means.
-Turretinfan
Seth, that goes for you too.
What are the two things that:
"Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
reasonably could mean?
Could it reasonably mean:
"Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
or
"Christ has perfected MOST OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
or
"Christ has perfected those (in general) for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
What's the other sense of the sentence that I'm missing and that you and David have not been able to enunciate in the last umpteen comments?
-Turretinfan
TF: Do you have any other basis upon which to assert that the statement is ambiguous? If not, lets move on.
David: Again, I just want to be sure that when you say, "those for whom the offering is made..."
it is accurately restated as "all those for whom the offering is made..."
I think its such a small point I cant imagine why you hesitate like this. It should be a simple yes or no. Surely you can condescend and clarity. I dont have any tricks up my sleeve. You have seen what I have to say already. You can anticipate my rejoinders to come.
David
Just to be clear:
TF: You say: Could it reasonably mean:
"Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
David: I agree with this as a broader proposition. But if one says I hold to that premise on the basis of Heb 10:14 then it is not something I would say is true.
That is what I was trying to say before.
David
David:
I'm glad to know what you think the text says.
I've taken a different position, namely that "Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
Can we agree that my statement cannot reasonably be taken to mean "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10."
If so, can we agree that my statement is not ambiguous?
-Turretinfan
Hey TF,
thanks for calming down.
Sure, your: "that my statement cannot reasonably be taken to mean "Christ has perfected SOME OF those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered."
But to rule out any possibility of misunderstanding, I would just like to know that if I convert your proposition into this:
For all whom the offering is made were perfected (as evidenced by Heb 10).
If I were to recast your proposition, would it be accurate? I ask because, rightly or wrongly perhaps, thats how my brain works through syllogisms.
Thanks,
David
David,
I'd prefer not to have it recast that way.
Mostly I'd prefer not to have it recast that way, because (through redundancy) it shifts the emphasis of the statement.
Maybe its a minor shift, but it's my premise - and I'm the one defending it.
The point is that the sacrifice perfected a group, and that the group is those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered.
Thus, we can set my Major Premise as a new conclusion, and the new syllogism is:
1. The sacrifice perfected a group;
2. The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered; and
3. Therefore, my original major premise is correct.
Again, I think you will grant that this is a valid syllogism (the conclusion follows from the premises) and if I am correct in understanding your position, you may question both the major and the minor premise here, or perhaps only the minor premise.
I'm inclined to say that you'd question only the new minor premise, but you tell me.
-Turretinfan
TF, you seem to be confused. You listed your major premise as:
Christ has perfected those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered, as evidenced by Hebrews 10.
You claim this is an unambiguous premise. In fact, you seemed very surprised that we could find it ambiguous. But of course, it is highly ambiguous, and can actually support either of our positions, because it does not explicitly define the symmetry between Christ's perfecting and his offering.
What I mean is, in this premise, are you assuming that Christ only offered for those he has perfected? Are you assuming that his perfecting of some precludes his offering for others in a different way? If so, how does that not beg the question against the multiple-intentions view? Such symmetry clearly is not explicit in our text. It is not the case that Hebrews 10 indicates that Christ's offering was only for those whom he perfects. It only indicates that those whom he perfects he also offered himself for. That is why I find your use of this passage to begin with very strange (and I think David and Seth agree with me here).
You are fallaciously assuming that, if those perfected Christ offered himself for, therefore, those not perfected Christ did not offer himself for. You do this on the basis of assuming a single kind of offering. But that is the very question at hand: were there multiple intentions in the offering of Christ? Did he offer himself in one way for the elect, but in another way for the reprobate? So you are begging the question; assuming your own conclusion.
this might help:
to some of us, this proposition is or could be ambiguous:
Those for whom Christ died are glorified.
Some of us may wonder if the person really means some of those for whom Christ died will be glorified or all of those for whom Christ died will be glorified.
Conversational English is not the same as propositional English in a formal argument.
And given our wider assumptions we might want to be sure what exactly is meant.
David
Bnonn,
I think your real problem is not with the statement itself being ambiguous, but with my new minor premise above.
In other words, I think you believe that the set of those for whom Christ sacrificed himself is greater than the group that were perfected.
That's not really ambiguity in my statement, that's substantive disagreement with the plain sense of the statement.
We'll get to that substantive disagreement shortly, I trust.
-Turretinfan
TF says:
I'd prefer not to have it recast that way.
David says, well I am gonna have a problem. Anyway, I see that Bnonn has hit the nail on the head already.
TF: Mostly I'd prefer not to have it recast that way, because (through redundancy) it shifts the emphasis of the statement.
David: Well the way you it has already changed the emphasis in your version of the premise. The emphasis in the text is these ones, this group, for whom Christ dies, he has perfected. We would agree with that.
But that is not your premise.
For you, its generalised: for those whom Christ made an offering he perfected.
TF: Maybe its a minor shift, but it's my premise - and I'm the one defending it.
David: TF, think about it. As soon as you say you are NOT saying “some of those for whom the offering is made are perfected,” by default you ARE saying all those for whom the offering is made are perfected. Right? Surely you can see that?
I really want to stress this: as soon as you concede that you are not saying “some of whom Christ made an offering, were perfected” you must mean “all of whom Christ....”
TF: The point is that the sacrifice perfected a group, and that the group is those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered.
David: Ah yes. Bnonn has nailed it here too. Sure, Christ perfected this group. And this group were referents of the offering. But you need more than that I would think, you want more than that. I would think you want to show that this group were the only referents of this offering.
Cos if I have anticipated your intended argument its this:
All for whom Christ made an offering for, were perfected.
The non-elect were not perfected.
Therefore Christ did not make an offering for the non-elect.
[Excusus: if I have not got your intention right here, that you have other argument to come, sorry I am not meaning to try and box you in.]
The conclusion has to follow if the major premise is true. But you need to prove that major premise from this vers.,
TF: Thus, we can set my Major Premise as a new conclusion, and the new syllogism is:
1. The sacrifice perfected a group;
2. The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered; and
3. Therefore, my original major premise is correct.
David: okay, lets look at these premises.
True: the sacrifice perfected a group
Not necessarily false, but not necessarily true either: The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered
[Excursus: David: Now again I do think you write in a way that leads me to always want to be sure. You say “the group is the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered.” I assume in my reply that you mean, this group is “the set” which Christ offered a sacrifice for. That is, this group exhausts “the set” for which the offering was made; it completely fills it and exhausts it.]
David: You need to establish that this group was the only referent object of the offering. All you have *from the text* is that it’s a group which is the referent, it could one group of many groups, or even just a group opposed to one other group. You have to prove that this group exhausts the “set” for whom Christ made an offering.
You need to show this: Christ only made an offering for this group.
Not true: Therefore, my original major premise is correct
Well here it goes you see. Your original premise was this: Those for whom Christ made an offering were perfected. And whats more you conceded that by this you DON’T mean “some of those” for whom the offering was made were perfected. So you really do mean ALL those for whom the offering was made were perfected.
So your new syllogism. The premise 2 is the vulnerable premise. You have not established that this group is the ONLY group that Christ could have made an offering for, or that he did make an offering for. This verse only speaks to a specific group, or a group, whom it says Christ made and offering for and thereby perfected.
So you have not proved the conclusion 3).
Again, Bnonn has nailed it. It is not making any claim about Christ not making any offering for anyone outside of this group.
TF: Again, I think you will grant that this is a valid syllogism (the conclusion follows from the premises) and if I am correct in understanding your position, you may question both the major and the minor premise here, or perhaps only the minor premise.
David: sound may be, but shown to be true, not at all.
TF: I'm inclined to say that you'd question only the new minor premise, but you tell me.
David: he told all.
David
Here we go.
TF says to Bnonn:
In other words, I think you believe that the set of those for whom Christ sacrificed himself is greater than the group that were perfected.
That's not really ambiguity in my statement, that's substantive disagreement with the plain sense of the statement.
David: Which statement? The plain sense of the Scripture Statement is that these people for whom Christ offered himself, are perfected (ie., by that offering).
Its not plain at all to us that this verse is saying all those for whom an offering was made, were perfected. You are not there yet TF. And so you have not precluded the possibility that there may be a group for whom the sacrifice was made, which is wider than the group of these ones here who have been perfected.
TF, unless you have something else to show us, I just dont think you see the problem before you.
David
David,
*****
(1)
TF: The point is that the sacrifice perfected a group, and that the group is those for whom his self-sacrifice was offered.
David: Ah yes. Bnonn has nailed it here too. Sure, Christ perfected this group. And this group were referents of the offering.
I answer: No, not just "referents" but the group of those for whom Christ self-sacrificed. Referents would be members of the group of those for whom Christ self-sacrificed.
TF: Thus, we can set my Major Premise as a new conclusion, and the new syllogism is:
1. The sacrifice perfected a group;
2. The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered; and
3. Therefore, my original major premise is correct.
*****
(2)
You grant my new major premise:
Evidence: D: "True: the sacrifice perfected a group"
With respect to my new minor premise you write: "David: Not necessarily false, but not necessarily true either: The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered."
(apparently you understand what "set" means, based on your excursus)
David: You need to establish that this group was the only referent object of the offering.
I answer: I guess I do, assuming that you disagree. Do you disagree? If you agree, then I don't really need to establish that point -- which is why your "not necessarily" above is so odd (to me).
In other words, it seems the bone of contention between us is whether:
The set of "those for whom Christ died"
is
1) equal to the set of "them that are sanctified"
or
2) greater than the set of "them that are sanctified."
You would affirm (2), while I would affirm (1).
-Turretinfan
****
TF says to Bnonn:
In other words, I think you believe that the set of those for whom Christ sacrificed himself is greater than the group that were perfected.
That's not really ambiguity in my statement, that's substantive disagreement with the plain sense of the statement.
David: Which statement?
I answer: "my statement"
********
BUT
David: The plain sense of the Scripture Statement is that these people for whom Christ offered himself, are perfected (ie., by that offering).
I answer: Fair enough.
And my job is to persuade you that "these people for whom Christ offered himself" is the sum total of those for whom Christ was offered.
In other words, as noted in my previous comment:
it seems the bone of contention between us is whether:
The set of "those for whom Christ died"
is
1) equal to the set of "them that are sanctified"
or
2) greater than the set of "them that are sanctified."
You would affirm (2), while I would affirm (1).
-Turretinfan
Old David:
David: Ah yes. Bnonn has nailed it here too. Sure, Christ perfected this group. And this group were referents of the offering.
TF:
I answer: No, not just "referents" but the group of those for whom Christ self-sacrificed. Referents would be members of the group of those for whom Christ self-sacrificed.
David: I don’t know how to put it. Lets try: the persons for whom the offering was made in behalf of. The offering itself is directed to God. It is in behalf of others, made by Christ. So far so good I would think. The referents for me is just a short hand way of saying, those persons, who in behalf of, Christ made an offering to God.
Heb 10:14 identifies a specific group of these referents. But are they the only referents? thats the question.
TF: Thus, we can set my Major Premise as a new conclusion, and the new syllogism is:
1. The sacrifice perfected a group;
2. The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered; and
3. Therefore, my original major premise is correct.
tf:
You grant my new major premise:
Evidence: D: "True: the sacrifice perfected a group"
David: yes.
tf: With respect to my new minor premise you write: "David: Not necessarily false, but not necessarily true either: The group was the set of those for whom the sacrifice was offered."
(apparently you understand what "set" means, based on your excursus)
old David: You need to establish that this group was the only referent object of the offering (as I am using referent).
New tf: I answer: I guess I do, assuming that you disagree. Do you disagree? If you agree, then I don't really need to establish that point -- which is why your "not necessarily" above is so odd (to me).
David: I personally don’t believe it, but in terms of the argument, you have not established it truth. Lets grant that it may be true. But you have yet to show it. Make sense?
TF: In other words, it seems the bone of contention between us is whether:
The set of "those for whom Christ died"
is
1) equal to the set of "them that are sanctified"
or
2) greater than the set of "them that are sanctified."
You would affirm (2), while I would affirm (1).
Actually I am not sure thats the bone. I mean, I don’t have to affirm 2). I can be completely indifferent about it. The bone is you need to prove 1). I don’t have to accept 2) to not grant your 1). I am sure you can see that.
I am not using this verse to make an argument, you are. :-)
I think you well and truly understand our objections. Can you meet the problem we have placed before you? Or do you even see that there is a problem in your argument? I guess is a more basic question.
David
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
I just got in and haven't fully gotten to every jot and tittle.
I have waded into some of this thus far and this comes to me for TF, David, Seth, Bnonn and other courageous ones to address.
It's straight forward stuff. No fluff.
I apologize in advance if I go back and start reading and you have placed them in your corner. I would like to see where the chips land though?
TF wrote this:
Major premise: All for whom the offering is made will be perfected.
Minor premise: The non-elect are not perfected
Conclusion: Therefore the offering was not made for the non-elect.
Would you place each of these "three" persons in their "proper place" according to you, who's who in the following verses:::> Election and reprobation:
Luk 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
Luk 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
Luk 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Luk 23:43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
In other words, I think you believe that the set of those for whom Christ sacrificed himself is greater than the group that were perfected.
That's not really ambiguity in my statement, that's substantive disagreement with the plain sense of the statement.
The issue I raised, TF, was that your argument assumes the consequent. There was a "plain meaning" to the premise you gave, but it was obviously one which begged the question—so people became confused. Since the premise was imprecise, people naturally wondered if they had misunderstood you. However, once we managed to clarify your premise, we found that it is indeed making the assertion that the set of people for whom Christ died is identical with the set of people whom he perfected. You are supposing that there is a one-to-one correspondence in the membership of the sets; that they are, in fact, the same set.
But we all know by now that you believe Christ died only for the elect, while we believe he died especially for the elect. We believe that the set of those for whom he died is larger than the set of people whom he perfected. Therefore, when you come to Hebrews 10 and assert that it shows the former view, it leads to the sort of confusion we see above, with dozens of posts spent trying to clarify your argument. The problem being, of course, that you haven't made one.
So, perhaps you would like to now take the time to justify from the text your belief that Christ died only for the elect. As I have said, and as David has pointed out above, Hebrews 10 makes no comment whatsoever about this matter. The only way to argue from Hebrews 10 to a symmetry between the set of those for whom Christ died and those he perfected, is to argue backwards.
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn.
I am glad that you can see through this argument as just an assertation placed on the text without the assertation coming from the text...big difference.
And you are right...it is a backwards argument.
I know I am way over my head here so I hope there is enough mercy for the ignorant?
Bnonn, in walking through your reasoning here you seem to be making the most sense. Maybe you should have debated TF? :)
Seth, isn't it your turn now? I know I don't understand where we are at in this debate now, maybe for us ignorants you could bring us up to date?
I have read your rebuttal now and it seems to me, I don't see one? What don't I see? I see you "unpacking" TF's argument.
Will you now put a clear concise argument forth that can be unpacked by those that have a difficulty with the "unlimited" portion of atonement?
Also, would one of you address the two men hanging on the trees with Christ in the middle? Who is who there?
All seemed to "know" and "believe" Jesus is the "Christ" including the Lord. Those two fellas seemed, by the Scripture, to "believe" Jesus could do something for them?
I believe He can and has and will do something for me.
Seth, what is there as a "major" difference here with starting the argument backwards if that is what you believe TF is doing? How would that refute your "unlimited" position in this debate? Do you believe TF just hoodwinked you?
This was the most counterproductive of all the portions of the debate so far from my view. Nothing really seemed to have been settled except I sensed no one was going to come under or bring up another. I am not sure TF needed to do anything but respond to the unpacking and whacking he got. I had a sense and I don't want to go back and read all that that I just read to have anymore sense about it, that this was not one of the Spirit of God's better moments with His Children for Whom Christ died. Rather, it seemed to me to be a soulish arguing back and forth on a minor emphasis except Bnonn's clarity. Was what I just read camels and gnats being strained and swallowed, swallowed and strained?
I hope I am not offending any of your learned men?
If so, I am happy to humble myself yet again. My pride stinks to foul the air anyway and I could use a dose of humility.
Michael
Bnonn,
I thought that was your point.
Obviously, what's necessary at this point is for me to justify to y'all that the perfected group is the entire group for whom the sacrifice is offered, as that seems to be the bone of contention.
Give me a little time to come up with a comprehensive explanation, and then I'll let Seth decide whether (as far as this blog is concerned) it deserves its own post, or whether it should be relegated to the combox.
-Turretinfan
And David, that goes for you as well - as I think that you and Bnonn have essentially the same main objection to my argument.
I didn't mean to exclude you in the last comment.
Michael,
I think Seth plans eventually to provide a positive case for the unlimited/limited position, we're just not there yet.
Please be patient with us.
-Turretinfan
Dear Seth,
As for your comment: "I am glad that you can see through this argument as just an assertation placed on the text without the assertation coming from the text...big difference."
I hope my detailed explanation will demonstrate to you that this is not the case.
It would seem to behoove you to without a judgment of eisegesis at least until an attempt at exegesis has been made by the other side.
Today - and even the first part of this evening does not look particularly good for me to prepare a sufficiently detailed explanation, but it is (Deo volente) coming. I'll initially send it to you backchannel by email, and let you decide whether (as far as your blog is concerned) it should occupy its own post, or merely a space as the 50-something-eth comment on this post.
-Turretinfan
Well thats good; I can wait.
When I should have been sleeping I came up with this:
I want to recap some things tho and make a summary.
There are two steps to TFs argument.
1) 1a) The assertion (and conversion) that these sanctified ones are all the elect, past, present, future, unbelieving, even non-existing.
AND
1b) All these were perfected and sanctified at the cross when Christ died, says TF.
My objections to that are manifold. Hebrews or Scriptures that I know of does not know of a pre-faith sanctification. One has to invent a whole new category to get this off the ground: in the form of TF's argument, following Gill. Now, if he followed Owen, he might be able to avoid some of this. Owen's claims here are not quite the same as the GILL-TF version (mediated by James White as we know).
To date I don’t see any argument that proves that these sanctified ones comprehend the entire class of elect. We have given reasons why we think TF's exegesis is contra-common sense and context.
Secondly, the problematic conversion of a present tense participle into a functional perfect is just dodgy (and that relative to the only other persent passive participle is in 2:11, which would not be taken as a functional perfect. I want to see more warrant and not just some assertion.
I mention this because I dont want us to lose sight of the fact that step 1) has never been demonstrated exegetically. So far, for our part, we have assumed it for the sake of the argument. But I don’t want the reader to think its actually legitimate exegetically, or that some of assent to it.
2) Essentially, we have two premises, one Scripture, one TF.
I will play around with the sense words of Heb 10:14.
Basically, the verse as some of us understand it is this:
A) These died for ones are perfected.
I think that’s accurate because of the wording: BY this sacrifice, the sanctified ones are perfected. We see the subjects of the perfection as being specified, located, delineated.
What’s really interesting too, is that the text does not even say, by this offering MADE FOR the ones sanctified are perfected.
So when I say, "these died for ones, are perfected, I am not actually reflecting the immediate sense, but an inferential. implication. So lets grant all this tho, and rest with this as rather accurately expressing the sense of this text.
These died for ones, are perfected.
Again: I can say "these" because the group is specified... who? these sanctified ones.
So again for clarity:
These died for ones, are perfected.
But now TF wants to say this:
All the died for ones are perfected.
The problem is, this text does not entail that. This text never will.
3) Imperfect analogy:
Its Christmas. Its turkey time. I say:
By this dinner, I have filled the tummies of all those who did eat.
The presupposition is that the dinner is a provision made for those who did eat. So far so good.
TF wants to say tho, that the provision was only “made for” those who did eat.
But we all know that’s not a valid or sound inference.
Perhaps Billy was stuck on I45East, in traffic and couldn’t get to my house? Perhaps Shelly got lost in the hub connection of LAX airport. All this could be true and still true that the provision was “made for” these people even if they didn’t eat the turkey.
What we can infer is this: Those who did not eat, did not have their tummies filled (by this provision that is).
You can create any equivalent analogy you like which if true to the sense of the verse, will never entail a limited provision (dinner or offering, etc).
So in TF’s argument there are critical steps he has to work through.
1) justifying the conversion of sanctification into some pre-faith sanctification and which happened on the cross at the time of the cross. (Of course he could discard these aspects, but hitherto he has affirmed them.) So he has a “hasty generalization” claim which is fallacious if not demonstrated as valid.
2) He has assumed that either the implication is that these sanctified ones are all, the same, the exact set or class as “all the died for” is.
3) There is another way of tackling this tho:
By this offering, the sanctified ones were perfected. One way TF could prove 2) if the text had added “for whom the offering was made and only made.” Like this: by this offering, ONLY MADE FOR the ones sanctified, are they perfected. [not shouting, emphasis.]
But that extra clause is not present. It has to be inserted, which would formally beg the question of the argument. If he wants to argue in a formal circle, he is not going to convince many why spot the circular argument. If he says, its implied, we say, your system is telling you, not the text at hand, but it is your system which you are trying to argue to. Now you are arguing from it as well. Bad bad bad. :-) And the rule of logic is that its always everywhere wrong to infer a universal negative from a simple positive.
Again I want to stress that step 1) has not been exegetically established.
TF...you said:
It would seem to behoove you to without a judgment of eisegesis at least until an attempt at exegesis has been made by the other side.
So, then why did you post? Wasn't your first post an exegetical attempt to draw out your thesis?
No, Seth, it was an attempt to clearly state the thesis.
-Turretinfan
TF
thanks for that reminder but with all slow and due respect, could you all hurry up as I might die before then and not know going out if I have full unlimited access to My Mansion or if I have limited access? :)!:(! :):):)
Dear Michael,
To live is Christ, and to die is gain!
-Turretinfan
Hey David,
that was very good, very clear and very concise!
Thank you!!!
A couple of pathways while we wait it out, pondering, pondering...
fallacious, fallacy.
Who in this debate brought this debate to that question? You?
Second path while waiting, thus:
DP:But that extra clause is not present. It has to be inserted, which would formally beg the question of the argument.
David, question:
why in your judgment is that an essential to the argument TF is making?
Are you saying that God cannot communicate intrinsically with His "Own" or is everything in Scripture only extrinsic to both the Elect and the reprobates, i.e. 'clearly believing reprobates without a dispute given here are': the Beast, the False Prophet, Satan and the "fallen" angels, Death, Hades and those whose names are not found in the book of Life; cf: Luke 23, the thieves; Romans 1, " those who know"; Revelation 20, the reprobates, both those we see and don't see, ii.ee. Satan and fallen man clearly not an "Elect" man, a fallen man as Paul addresses them in Romans 1?
David,
let me ask you a direct question:
Are you of the view of Amyraut?
Are you: "Amyraldian"
Michael asks and says:
Who in this debate brought this debate to that question? You?
David: Which question? If you mean, the claim that the santified ones are all for whom Christ died, Its the assumption TF needs to assume and prove for his argument to work. We just pointed that out to him.
Michael:
why in your judgment is that [inserted clause] an essential to the argument TF is making?
David: Because he needs to show us logically that the sanctified ones exhaust the members of the class: the died-for ones.
Michael: Are you saying that God cannot communicate intrinsically with His "Own" or is everything in Scripture only extrinsic to both the Elect and the reprobates, i.e. 'clearly believing reprobates without a dispute given here are': the Beast, the False Prophet, Satan and the "fallen" angels, Death, Hades and those whose names are not found in the book of Life; cf: Luke 23, the thieves; Romans 1, " those who know"; Revelation 20, the reprobates, both those we see and don't see, ii.ee. Satan and fallen man clearly not an "Elect" man, a fallen man as Paul addresses them in Romans 1?
David: I simply dont understand any of that.
Sorry,
David
Michael:
let me ask you a direct question:
Are you of the view of Amyraut?
Are you: "Amyraldian
David: Define Amyraldian.
Then I may be able to answer your question. I hesitate to say anything because its already apparent to some of us that TF has grossly misdefined Amyraldianism and whats more offensive, :-) grossly misdifined my position (see his who is David Ponter post, which only made me laugh. :-)
If it helps any, I am a Dabney-shedd-C.Hodge-Calvin-Bullinger-Zwingli-Vermiglite.
David :-)
and I can prove it too. :-)
Better: I am a Dabney-shedd-C.Hodge-Calvin-Bullinger-Zwingli-Vermigli-ite
David :-)
David,
Shedd, Hodge, and Dabney pretty unequivocally held "my" view.
Calvin predated the Amyraldian controversy. It made it hard for him to take sides.
I cannot speak dogmatically about Zwingli (who would also seem to predate the debate) or the others off hand, but given that you've mispresented the first four, I wouldn't be shocked to see that you've misrepresented the remaining few.
And if you agree with the Baxter quotation that Seth provided, then you clearly disagree with Calvin.
But you don't list Baxter on your short list, so who knows?
-Turretinfan
TF:
Shedd and Dabney are far from your view.
It may be asked, If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels
guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men
indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted
suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal
suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing
and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because
it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it
is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the
trusting in it, that saves the sinner. "By faith are ye saved. He that
believeth shall be saved," Ephesians 2:8; Mark 16:16. The making of this
atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it
does. If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would
result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an
act of trust in it, would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally
impossible that Christ's death should save from punishment one who does
not confide in it, as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a
man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of
Christ is sufficient for all men, therefore no men are lost, is as
absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880
was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe, therefore no
men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ
made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul.
Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death
have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his
death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act
of <, faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.
Unless his objective work is subjectively appropriated, it is useless,
so far as personal salvation is concerned. Christ's suffering is
sufficient to cancel the guilt of all men, and in its own nature
completely satisfies the broken law. But all men do not make it their
own atonement by faith in it; by pleading the merit of it in prayer, and
mentioning it as the reason and ground of their pardon. They do not
regard and use it as their own possession, and blessing. It is nothing
for them but a historical fact. In this state of things, the atonement
of Christ is powerless to save. It remains in the possession of Christ
who made it, and has not been transferred to the individual. In the
scripture phrase, it has not been imputed. There may be a sum of money
in the hands of a rich man that is sufficient in amount to pay the debts
of a million of debtors; but unless they individually take money from
his hands into their own, they cannot pay their debts with it. There
must be a personal act of each debtor, in order that this suns of money
on deposit may actually extinguish individual indebtedness. Should one
of the debtors, when payment is demanded of him, merely say that there
is an abundance of money on deposit, but take no steps himself to get it
and pay it to his creditor, he would be told that an undrawn deposit is
not a payment of a debt. Shedd Dogmatic Theology, vol 2, pp., 440-441.
But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid
mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16,
make "the world" which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we
reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish.
In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the
all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it would seem to be implied that
of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In
1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, "whole
world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than
Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation
of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The
interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these
are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic
epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would
seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning
believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every
man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for
them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent
sins. Dabney, Lectures, p., 525.
Those are just two quotes....many more are out there that speak directly against your assertions.
Seth,
I'm afraid you just don't understand what they're saying.
That's why you think they are opposed to my position, when - in fact - they favor it.
Now, of course, I'm not saying they have identical exegeses of every verse (surely not), but their view of the atonement is the same as mine.
As is that of the author of Hebrews. But since I have limited time here, I'll stick with the author of Hebrews, before exegeting the Reformed theologians.
-Turretinfan
I want to preface this with two comments:
Please dont republish anything I say on another site without my permission, and it was not me who brought up the historical question. I could be a mormon and it would make no difference to any of the critique I have presented thus far. The historical question is really off-point. I decided to answer Michael rather than just ignore him. I dont normally like to ignore folk.
Hey TF,
Well with all respect and friendliness, I am not confident that you have read Zwingli, Musculus, Bullinger, Vermigli, Ursinus, Paraeus, Kimedoncius, Howe, Charnock, and quite a few others.
So I dont believe you are in a position to make a judgement on their position yet.
As to Dabney, Shedd, CHodge thats pretty easy to establish. But you would need to read the source material.
The Amyraldian label you have tagged on me is just so off the mark. I know if you were to actually read the primary source material some of us have documented you would get an education. :-) All this is said with respect and friendliness.
So, your assertion above that Shedd, C Hodge and Dabney unequivocally held to your view needs to be verified right? If you want to have a little side-line conversation on the historical theology of this question, thats fine. Lets rock. :-)
But that aside too, your characterization of me was so funny. I laughed. Your definition of amyraldianism was so inaccurate. And the stuff about compatibilism, that was funny. You guessing and all. :-)
Now if you really do want to read some primary sources, scope this out:
Thus far Moderate Calvinism Documented
And please, dont just say "you've taken them out of context," if you think that, show me. But you really have to be honest with the texts you read and have a willingness to spend the time reading the material patiently and methodically and carefully.
Take care,
David
TF says:
I'm afraid you just don't understand what they're saying.
That's why you think they are opposed to my position, when - in fact - they favor it.
David: Wow, I would really love to see you make the statements by Shedd and Dabney fit your position on this.
Now I am waiting with interest.
But of course, if they fit your system, and I agree with them, then I must fit your system too?
David
:-)
Tf:
that is fine if you want to stick with the text in Hebrews, but it befuddles me how one, or anyone, can take an honest look at Dabney and Shedd (and many others) and deny that they believed that Christ died for all.
I would hope that when reading commentators and Systematic theologians, that spoke English, could be taken at their word. Because if they can't, I start to ask "How confused would their congregants have been when they preached?" Would they have to continually question plain assertions being presented and exegete the sermon itself?
Isn't the reason we have these theologians is to read them for what they plainly say about Scripture? A good theologian isn't ambiguous but speaks clearly for his audience to understand, not to lead to confusion.
So, when I read these men, I take them at face value. Being that, if you would like to bring forth any quotes that I should consider I would definitely do so.
But from my reading, which is a lot on this subject, Calvin, Bunyan, Baxter, Edwards, Shedd, Dabney, Hodge, Bullinger, and Zwingli are all very clear on their beliefs as they exegete the Scriptures.
I will be patient though, as this is not the reason for this debate, but I also know how people work. Usually, they want to see documented that we are not bringing up either new doctrine or plain heresy that has been cast out of the church. So, what we do, instead, is bring up Reformers and other theologians who agreed with us to show that this is not a new doctrine, nor one that was damned as heretical by those in protestant Christendom. And in our view, is the classic Calvinist position that was held.
Hey Dave, I can address you as Dave, right?
Let's remember whose the idiot here? Me! But you learned brothers, some of the "Elect", are this learning idiot's keeper right?
:)
In the words of a respected brother in my circles I quote him to make my point clear:
taken from the preface of a great work done by Kevin J. Conner, The Name of God, The Center Press, Portland Ore.:
quote from the preface by Rev. K.R. "Dick" Iverson, Pastor, Bible Temple circa 1975:
"In the days of the apostles, explicit answers to essential questions of doctrine were available from men to whom the Lord had personally committed 'faith once delivered to the Saints.' Exact definition of doctrine is today a more difficult problem. The definition lies within the Scriptures but 'what saith the Scriptures?' In some important areas of doctrine, sincere men disagree. We cannot appeal to 'them that heard Him' for definitions beyond what the Scriptures now affords. Earnest inquiry into the meaning of the Scripture is therefore imperative."
Ok, I quote my friend Pastor Iverson to say, fallacious is not on the table so whoever brought it onto the table of this debate needs to remove it seeing I believe TF has with some measure of "sincerity" approached this disagreeable matter of "limited atonement" and we will soon hopefully see the sincerity of Seth's metal in bringing out the "unlimited" "limited" atonement side.
I do not believe anyone of you is fallacious in agruing with some zeal your point.
But I do refer you to the "wisdom" of Dr. Iverson, all are dead that have debated it already except for those who are not yet dead, who are debating now. I can appeal to those who were present when Paul wrote Romans, Peter wrote Peter and an author/s wrote Hebrews, especially/namely, God My Creator and Elector of my wretched soul.
I can also appeal to each of you making reference to dead men's writings. I cannot appeal to those men now seeing I am not King Saul wanting to talk to the dead Living, i.e. Samuel through the witch of Endor.
Hopefully Amyraut would agree and David and me, making it "two" living and "one" dead, three? :)
Any responders?
with friendly levity and sincerity,
michael
Hey Michael
Michael says:
Hey Dave, I can address you as Dave, right?
David says: I prefer David. :-) But I wont get bent out of shape over Dave.
Cut
Michael: Ok, I quote my friend Pastor Iverson to say, fallacious is not on the table so whoever brought it onto the table of this debate needs to remove it seeing I believe TF has with some measure of "sincerity" approached this disagreeable matter of "limited atonement" and we will soon hopefully see the sincerity of Seth's metal in bringing out the "unlimited" "limited" atonement side.
David: I am not so sure. Why the sort of expose’ post on who is David Ponter? That post was not the post of a sincere inquirer or debater, but of someone who felt the need to vindicate their position while isolating and refuting someone else’s. Anyway, rather than take offence at the disinformation factory TF is generating about me ;-), I just decided to laugh it off. But this is all off-point and again making it all personal-focused rather than issue-focused. So we should stop focusing on the person and on the theological and historical claims. Cos like I said, I could be a Mormon and nothing I have said changes.
Michael: I do not believe anyone of you is fallacious in agruing with some zeal your point.
David: But the inference TF drawed to draw is fallacious. Its an unsound inference in logic.
Re: Dead men. The problem is, as soon as one uses any of these critical labels, like Calvinism, Calvinist, Arminianism, Arminian, Amyraldianism, Amyraldian, historical questions are now up on the table. So, its best not to throw out a label unless one is first prepared to defend it, and out of Christian charity, be willing to interact with the accused regarding the validity of the labelling.
I will leave off with a small snippet from the world’s first Amyraldian:
"To suffer indeed He had come, and He punished him through whom He suffered. For Judas the traitor was punished, and Christ was crucified: but us He redeemed by His blood, and He punished him in the matter of his price. For he threw down the price of silver, for which by him the Lord had been sold; and he knew not the price wherewith he had himself by the Lord been redeemed. This thing was done in the case of Judas."
Augustine On the Psalms, “Exposition of the Psalms,” 69:27, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 8:309.
Take care,
David
David,
If you don't understand what you're reading, reading the most learned man or Scripture itself is not the helpful.
Frankly, based on the mischaracterizations I've seen, I think that the charitable explanation is that you have not understood what you read.
It's much worse if you do understand what you've read and micharacterize it anyway, but I'd rather not assume that's the case.
There will be a time and place for dealing with your misuse of Dabney, Hodge, and Shedd, but that place is not here and now.
-Turretinfan
David:
"disinformation factory"?
I'll have to remember that one.
One thing should be clear: if I have written something untrue about you (on my blog or elsewhere), please bring it to my attention.
If you don't want to do so publicly, because you are concerned about your reputation, you may send me an email to state what it is you think justifies your label above.
-Turretinfan
Hey TF, you did the very thing I asked you not to do:
David,
If you don't understand what you're reading, reading the most learned man or Scripture itself is not the helpful.
Frankly, based on the mischaracterizations I've seen, I think that the charitable explanation is that you have not understood what you read.
David: You have just essentially said, " David, youve taken them out of context."
:-)
But I am a man of reasonable self-control. I can wait.
Get to work on proving your major premise from Heb 10:14. ;-)
Take care,
David
TF said: One thing should be clear: if I have written something untrue about you (on my blog or elsewhere), please bring it to my attention.
If you don't want to do so publicly, because you are concerned about your reputation, you may send me an email to state what it is you think justifies your label above.
David: No I will leave it now, cos when people ask me about it, its easier to to show who how inaccurate it is. And anyone who cares about me will ask me anyway. And those whom I care about know its disinformation.
David :-)
Seth wrote: "that is fine if you want to stick with the text in Hebrews, but it befuddles me how one, or anyone, can take an honest look at Dabney and Shedd (and many others) and deny that they believed that Christ died for all."
I answer: Hopefully I'll have time to unfuddle you.
Seth wrote: "I would hope that when reading commentators and Systematic theologians, that spoke English, could be taken at their word."
I answer: That's not the issue. The issue is understanding what they mean by what they say.
-Turretinfan
David,
"No I will leave it now, cos when people ask me about it, its easier to to show who how inaccurate it is. And anyone who cares about me will ask me anyway. And those whom I care about know its disinformation."
I'm tempted to place this disclaimer on it. "David claims that there is some inaccuracy on this, but he won't say what that inaccuracy is. If you don't know what it is that is inaccurate, David does not care about you. Thought he did? Think again. After all, I've openly invited David to correct any innacuracies, and he's publicly declined."
-Turretinfan
This is fun.
Its like this. A man looks up and sees the sun shining. Another man says the first man is misreading the sky, its actually overcast and about to pour. The man looks up and sees the sun.
TF confidently asserts I am misreading these men, such that they unequivocally agree with him (strong claim). I am the man just looking up and seeing the sun.
The two men could on like this for a long time.
Ad fontes.
Take care,
David
TF,
Do whatever you want. If you did that, it would only make the post look even more unprofessional.
:-)
Take care,
David
I'll have to ask Dave Armstrong for the appropriate comeback to that one.
-Turretinfan
Well now, the idiot wants to reclaim this portion the floor, Seth permitting me license, seeing we are not on point in the debate, just waiting it out, pondering.
David, do you see Amyraut in any of your views? Would you feel you are an Amyraldian?
Remember, you are the learned one here and in your blog you did ask us virtual students to ask you things so that we could pass from being idiots in public to being learned as well.
It was a direct question. Would you answer it? Yes? No? If yes, what's your answer? If no? Well I will move on!
thanks
michael
TF—
Since we are all professing Christians, and "out of the heart, the mouth speaks", I think it is important for you to know how your words come across. I am a relatively disinterested third party. I know neither you nor David from a bar of soap, and I strongly disagree with both of you on various points of doctrine (you on limited atonement; David on the extent of God's sovereignty). So I am not really interested in taking sides, and I am not interested in championing one of you or the other. But I am interested in seeing Christ held up and God glorified.
This being the case, I'd like to make you aware of the fact that you, like Christian e-pologists, sometimes come across as neither humble nor sincere. What I mean by this is that people who are sincere in their apologetics are doing it because they wish to see errors corrected, truth proclaimed, and souls saved for the glory of God. It should be a humbling enterprise, because we are vessels of God's very word, which is the power of God for salvation. It should be a humbling enterprise because we are not worthy to untie his sandles, far less proclaim his words and be his trusted servants. It should be a humbling enterprise because it should be always looking toward Christ, so that he is glorified, and not ourselves. Now, if we are not sincere in those goals, we will not display any of this humility. And I can say with confidence that no apologist of any kind, no matter what his stature, is completely sincere. The kernel of sin in us always desires to gratify our own pride. We never glorify God as we should. But some people seem to try much harder than others.
In cases where we can be confident that those with whom we are debating are already saved, we ought to be even more aware that our conduct is to such that it builds up our brothers, and is to be above reproach in the eyes of both the elect and the world. I don't mean we should conform to the world's standards of etiquette, but I mean that every rebuke should be weighed, every criticism considered, because we are not interested in our own glory, but God's. If I think David is wrong, my natural reaction is to villify him. Indeed, I am a particularly unpleasant person at heart, and can bend my eloquence to serve my malice very effectively. I wish to crow at him, and I wish to write about what an idiot he is, how slow to understand and how stubborn of heart. I wish to compare him unfavorably to myself, and use God's truth as a mechanism for my own glorification, as if by understanding it I am a greater person, or a greater Christian, than he is. I wish to discredit him, and credit myself. I am sure that these wicked desires still evidence themselves in what I write all the time, and that is to my shame.
However, maybe because of this, it particularly pains me to see other Christians indulging in that sort of behavior. I must always remind myself that my disagreement with David is important not because I love being right, but because we both love God's word. If I love being right, I will be sure to provoke personal confrontations, and write articles about him on my blog. I will, of course, wish to maintain the appearance of piety, and so I will be passive-aggressive when I can; or openly aggressive when I can find some excuse from Scripture (understand I am not just thinking of you as I write this). Sarcasm and back-handedness will be my chief allies; frankness and openness will not. And, by employing these methods, I will make it difficult for David to remain charitable—both because he is also a sinner whose impulse it is to give as good as he gets, and because it is very hard to respond to sarcasm and passive-aggressive posturing without either seeming smug and superior, or whiney and pathetic. It is even difficult to rebuke such behavior without seeming to sink to the same level. And often, even the most charitable reply which points out this behavior will simply provoke more, and in hindsight seem incendiary.
Please understand that I am not saying that you come across this way all the time, or in every way I have described. I am deliberately generalizing about much of the behavior I observe in the apologetics "blogosphere" (I shudder at the word), in the hope that you will see it also and desire to not emulate it. I am not accusing you of being a troll; nor am I vindicating David. But I think you should know that, from time to time, you come across as being more interested in personal one-up-manship than in one-upping God's word. I think it is probably no great revelation to observe that your personality and David's clash. But posting articles like 'Who is David Ponter?' does nothing that I can see to further the cause of Christ. It does nothing to keep you above reproach in the eyes of others. It just comes across as petty rivalry with no relevance to the gospel. You are by no means the worst, obviously. Certain posters on Triablogue spring immediately to mind as being driven by personality rather than love of God. Sound as their theology and good as their arguments may be, a Christian would seldom have warrant to emulate their behavior.
I also think that you exacerbate the situation by simply telling David (and Seth) that they have misunderstood Dabney, Shedd, and the others. I have read only a little of these authors on the topic at hand, but it appears quite clear to me, as to Seth and David, that they believed Christ died for all. Several quotes have been given to show this. They are not in arcane language, or cryptic verse; they're in plain English, and they say that Christ died for all. Anyone who can read can see that. Yet you repeatedly say we have misunderstood them, as if they are written in some kind of code, the key to which only you possess. And the fact that you do not substantiate this assertion makes it seem quite smug. I am sure this is contributing to much of the frustration which is evident in this thread. As David says, it is like looking up at a clear blue sky, and having you tell us, nope, we've misunderstood it—it's overcast. Actually, given the number of commentators involved, it is more like looking up at a clear blue sky, down onto green grass, and out at a purple mountain range, and being told that it's overcast, that we're standing in a desert, and that the horizon is empty.
I hope you, and others, find this post constructive.
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn,
I can see why you'd feel that way.
And I can see why my comments can sound a bit hard.
On the other hand, from here, the perspective is the same. I don't feel like its harsh to say "No, the sky is Blue," even if dozens of folks comment saying that, in their opinion, it is a sort of polka-dot hazel colour.
We both see the matter clearly, it would seem, but one side (or both/all) is wrong.
-Turretinfan
Seth,
I've substantiated my comment as to Shedd and asked you an open question about whether this debate needs to continue,
Here
-Turretinfan
Hey Bnonn,
I really appreciated your post there.
A long time ago I said to a theological opponent: "when you act like a butthead, I act like a butthead."
In my opinion this person was acting like an spoilt child. Its always hard not to respond in like manner.
Another thing Ive learned, this time from a friend, is that so many act as if they are God's honour police. Thus, discourse is about vindicating God's honour and 'destroying' the one who challenges it, than about have a conversation between Christian brothers, seeking mutual understanding, etc.
At times I have tried to maintain a friendly disposition and demeanour. I lost it tho when I saw my comments ripped from here and posted elsewhere without even a note or a request. Its just after that that I made my comment about the argument from 1 Tim 4:10 as being junk. I was pretty agitated then and just wanted to speak my mind. :-)
My problems with that expose' post are things like, I was not even asked what I believe. But guesses were made. I was not even asked where I source my beliefs. The connection to Geisler is just absurd. I was doing this long before he published that book. I never read that book until about 4 years after it was published, and then only cos I became aware of some of his historical claims.
The 4 point calvinism thing I completely reject.
Its also theologically and historically inaccurate. Its claims rely on outdated secondary sources that have essentially circulated an urban myth.
At another level the motives are open to challenge. Its as I must be quarantined as if I am some theological infection. That someone feels the need to brand me, of all people, a peon in the great scheme of things.
The most profound irony in all this is the ethical dilemma. Here is a man who keeps his identity totally secret from us, and so is totally unaccountable to the people of God, who yets sets himself up as judge over others. That is just so wrong in my opinion. Its scary that it happens on the net, and that "reformed" people do it. This has got to be the most damning in the whole thing.
So what can I do about the post? I just dont see any chance of a reasonable dialogue. I have no means to seek a higher court, so to speak... so what is left is but for me to smile and ignore it.
.... Actually, no the greatest insult was the claim that TartanA had presented a detailed refutation. That was salt to the wound. :-)
Jokes aside...
Thanks
David
I see that TF has made some sort of attempt to demonstrate that some of us have misunderstood Shedd et al.
TF’s reply seems to be this, while Shedd does make some semantic distinction between atonement and redemption, when does speak of unlimited atonement, he is simply speaking of its unlimited intrinsic value.
To that we can say a few things. It is completely true that Shedd considered the expiation to have an unlimited, ie infinite, intrinsic value. The problem is, that is not all Shedd is saying. To put it this way, he is also saying that the expiation has an unlimited extrinsic value. But even that does not exhaustively capture his theology.
Here are two comments from Shedd which cannot be interpreted as merely and only affirming the expiation's unlimited intrinsic value:
1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...
This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.
2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.
David: Now, you can say that I am completely misunderstanding Shedd, but until you can give me a credible explanation as to how and why Shedd could say that the sins of the whole human race, of all mankind, has been expiated, and not only expiated, but the claims of the law against all mankind cancelled, I will continue to say, “yes, Shedd believed that the expiation has an infinite intrinsic value, but that is not all he said or taught. He also said that all sin has been expiationed, and that the claims of the law against mankind have been cancelled. You really do have to deal with his actual language at some point in all this.
And thus it is not the case that Shedd unequivocally agrees with you. And what is more, it is clear that Shedd is operating by a fundamentally different expiation and substitution model.
take care,
David
I have responded to David's further assertions regarding the comments made on my blog in the appropriate place here.
Shedd agreed with Owen and Turretin, not with Ponter.
-Turretinfan
Seth has directed me to TFs reply.
Hey TF, I have to say you are fighting a strawman here.
I can agree with near most of all Shedd's qualifications. What is more, specifically, I totally agree with Shedd's desciptions regarding the expiation.
But now, once again, you did not directly address what Shedd has said as per the material we've posted. Its fine to keep directing us to Shedd other commments. We will only go, "ahem, yes I agree with that too," or "Well no I dont quite agree with him on that, tho."
And remember I have never said that Shedd unequivocally agrees with me. But you did.
So once again, you just avert our attention from the quotations we have provided.
Shedd:
1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...
This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.
2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.
How can it be that he sin(s) of the whole human race has been expiated, and how can it be that he claims of the law against all mankind have been cancelled?
No need to point to where we may or may disagree with Shedd on other aspects, but direct us to an explication of the cited words above. I will not entertain any other Shedd material until you address his theology in these 2 quotations.
On another note tho, are you yet prepared to concede that Heb 10:14 does not sustain your case?
Btw, I can feel my tone edging up. I am trying to keep it friendly.
Take care,
David
David,
The portions you quoted are explained by Shedd's comment, at p. 441:
"Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."
Likewise, it is explained by Shedd's comment on p. 431 that:
"The atoning Mediator can demand upon principles of strict justice, the release from penalty of any sinful man in respect to whom he makes the demand."
The first of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood expiation to be incidental to the purpose of Christ's death (since it would be "in vain" but for the work of the Spirit), and the second of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood the expiation to be directed to the relationship between the offeror (Jesus Christ) and the offeree (the god-head), such that Jesus Christ has been given the right to apply the purchased liberty (sufficient for all) to the release of whatever captives he desires.
This further demonstrated by the internal evidence in your first quotation: "Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual."
Likewise, it is demonstrated by Shedd's comment on the following page (after making a comparison between personal and vicarious atonement), that "When a person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."
Similarly, Shedd is making the same point when he states: "The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction."
Satisfaction relates to sufficiency - blotting out and forgiveness relate to efficacy.
Sufficient to all, efficient to the elect.
-Turretinfan
One final note.
David wrote:"On another note tho, are you yet prepared to concede that Heb 10:14 does not sustain your case?"
I answer:
On the contrary. It's just going to take a while to write a suitably detailed explanation.
-Turretinfan
TF says:
Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."
Likewise, it is explained by Shedd's comment on p. 431 that:
"The atoning Mediator can demand upon principles of strict justice, the release from penalty of any sinful man in respect to whom he makes the demand."
The first of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood expiation to be incidental to the purpose of Christ's death (since it would be "in vain" but for the work of the Spirit), and the second of these two quotations provides evidence that Shedd understood the expiation to be directed to the relationship between the offeror (Jesus Christ) and the offeree (the god-head), such that Jesus Christ has been given the right to apply the purchased liberty (sufficient for all) to the release of whatever captives he desires.
David: Incidental? You are kidding right? I must have missed the part where you cited him saying that the expiation is incidental to the purposes of Christ's death. Shedd:
This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims.
David: it cancelled those claims. Thats not just an incidental aspect. It cancelled those claims against all mankind
Shedd: The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death
David: Again, expiated, an accomplished reality.
The expiation was not merely an incidental aspect, TF, Rather, what he means it that had no man been saved, the expiation which was effected would not be changed.
TF Quotin Shedd: This further demonstrated by the internal evidence in your first quotation: "Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual."
David: Totally agree with him here.
TF: Likewise, it is demonstrated by Shedd's comment on the following page (after making a comparison between personal and vicarious atonement), that "When a person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."
David: Again thats fine
But now: this remains true:
1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...
This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.
2) VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.
For Shedd, this claims are necessary given the very nature of the expiation itself.
So, for Shedd, all sin is expiated, and the laws claims against all mankind cancelled.
Please just don’t tell me this is an incidental idea in Shedd. I am asking you to properly address it. And you need to be honest and admit that it is not the case that Shedd unequivocally disagrees with us.
Take care,
David
David,
Let's break this up into bite-sized portions.
Shedd says the claims of the law are necessarily cancelled as to a particular person when the atonement is imputed to that particular person.
a) Do you agree that Shedd says that, and
b) Is that your position too?
-Turretinfan
Incidental?
Then I have to wonder, does TF agree with Shedd;s claim that the sins of whole human race were incidentally expiated and the claims of the law against all mankind were incidentally cancelled?
:-)
David
TF:
He says this:
It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...
This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.
All mankind. But the application is particular and individual. We agree with Shedd on the applicaiton part. But I do you agree with him in the unlimited part?
David
David,
I think I fully agree with everything Shedd wrote (or quoted with approval) in Chapter II "Vicarious Atonement" of his "Dogmatic Theology."
That said,
Let's break this up into bite-sized portions.
Shedd says the claims of the law are necessarily cancelled as to a particular person when the atonement is imputed to that particular person.
a) Do you agree that Shedd says that, and
b) Is that your position too?
-Turretinfan
I'm not asking whether he uses those exact words, but I am looking for a clear, non-evasive answer (preferably "yes" or "no") to the question.
I assume that there is nothing loaded about the question. If there is, please explain.
-Turretinfan
I am off now I wont be checking in at CA until ater tomorrow.
Its recreational beer drinking for me tonight.
David
David:
Cheers!
When you respond, bear in mind Shedd's comment:
"When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience."
Once you understand that, you'll be able to see that in the other portion, Shedd is speaking about the demands of the law on humanity in the abstract, and not as to individual people.
-Turretinfan
In this comment I want to be "proven" wrong though,
TF, I am not now convinced that DP will answer you yes or no.
Shedd:Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain."
the forth following of DP would want any reasonably sound person to answer yes or no and then go from there. Apparently not him.
Why the ca-gee-nuss? hmmmm.
When I try to get my pea size brain around understanding God the Father's Will in relationship to Christ's Will in relationship to the Sanctification of the Spirit and His "Voice", His Will too, cf 1 Peter 1:2 and turn my brain around and go backwards into Eternity with my thoughts, I don't go very far!
Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, most high learned of the "Governor" Spurgeon, said one day he was thinking. He started thinking back in time, he said and into Eternity Past and at some period of time later found himself sick and trembling even though He was thinking of His Master's Son Christ Jesus Our Dear Lord. Nevertheless he became sick and began trembling until the Lord came to him and asked, "Dear Friend", why? I have not created you to think that way, turn around in your thinking, look ahead and "Hope in Me". One day you too will pass and I will be there waiting for you! :)
I too found myself sick and trembling. You see I too am a fool and don't learn from another's mistakes so well! "To each his own, his own to each we have sown something for good or ill".
I may not like the way DP does it. But he is who he is. I am who I am. You are TF to me, and so it is for DP.
It might not be as important to me to know who you are, but when the Holy Ghost comes to me and acknowledges to my spirit that I hear "His" in yours, that's good enough for me!
Michael
Michael,
It's worse than that.
Shedd makes clear that pages 378-463 are about the nature and value of the atonement, when he says, at the top of page 464:
"Having considered the nature and value of Christ's atonement, we are prepared to consider its extent." (emphasis in original)
Provided with that additional context, we can see that when Shedd says: "Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly," (at page 437) he is not speaking as to the extent (as though the atonement extended to every man) but as to the nature (legal claim cancellation) and value (infinite).
Thus, by the time Shedd explains at page 470 that "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited," we understand that Shedd means that the atonement (the sacrifice itself) is of infinite intrinsic value, but that the redemption (the purposed application of that atonement) is of particular, limited extent - that particular, limited extent being set by election.
Shedd explicitly rejects the "doctrine of the school of Saumer" (aka Amyraldianism) at page 471.
Likewise, Shedd, at page 474, explains what he means:
"In saying that Christ's atonement is limited in its application, and that redemption is particular, not universal, it is meant that the number of persons to whom it is effectually applied is a fixed and definite number."
Furthermore, Shedd explains, at page 475:
"Although Christ's atonement, in the discussion of its value and sufficiency, can be separated from the intention to apply it, yet in the Divine mind and decree the two things are inseparable."
Shedd likewise, on the same page, explains:
"The sacrifice of Christ is offererd with the intention that it shall actually be successful in saving human souls from death."
Similarly, on the next page, Shedd explains:
"The Divine Father, in giving the Divine Son as a sacrifice for sin, simultaneously determined that this sacrifice should be appropriated through faith by a definite number of the human family, so that it might be said that Christ died for this number with the distinct intention that they should be personally saved by this death."
Furthermore, Shedd, at pages 476-478 proves "That the atonement, in the mind of God, was inseparable from his purpose to apply it to individuals ... ."
In the couse of so doing, he states:
- "the atonement of Christ ... is not intended to be applied to non-elect men though it is sufficient for them"
- "... Christ's atonement is intended for application only to believers" (as, incidentally, I already showed in this debate, with reference to John 3:16)
- "The atoning work of Christ in its intended application is no wider than his intercessory work."
- And negatively, speaking of the non-elect: "It is logical therefore to conclude that he does not discharge the particular office of priest for them."
In addressing objections to limited redemption, at pages 479-89, Shedd rejects Seth's view (and - since Seth seems to have obtained his view from David, we shall presume David's view also) that Christ is the federal head of the same group as Adam (p. 480), instead indicating that "The 'all' in Adam is a larger aggregate than the 'all' in Christ."
Likewise, at page 482, Shedd explains that "3. The atonement is sufficent in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and thi sfact should be stated beacuse it is a fact. there are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinte atonement has not been provided. "All things are now ready." Therefore the call to "come" is universal. It is plain, [sic] that the offer of the aontement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy."
This is really the final nail in the coffin for Ponter's position.
Recall that Ponter had, while admitting that Shedd considered the expiation to have an unlimited, i.e. infinite, intrinsic value, also asserted that Shedd is saying that the expiation has an unlimited extrinsic value.
That is clearly not the case. Instead, Shedd's comments regarding the claims of justice being satisfied relate to the instrinsic value of the atonement, as clarified by Shedd himself in the most recent quotation above.
But, of course, all this confusion on Ponter's part springs from two facts:
First, it is confusion to assert that the legal claims of the law are cancelled with respect to any person, while asserting that such a person is guilty.
That this is confusion can be demonstrated in this way:
1. Justice demands that only the guilty be condemned.
2. Guilt is the result of violation of the law;
3. Violation of the law is contravention of the demands of the law;
4. If the demands of the law are removed, if it is impossible that they can be contravened;
5. If the law's demands cannot be contravened, the law cannot be violated.
6. If the law cannot be violated, there can be no guilt.
7. If there is no guilt, there can be no basis for judicial punishment.
8. Yet, some on the last day will be judged, which proves:
a) That they are guilty;
b) That they have violated the law;
c) That they have contravened the demands of the law; and
d) That, as to those people, the demands of the law have not been cancelled, destroyed, or otherwise removed.
Second, it is confusion to say that the atonement is effective only for the elect, while asserting that atonement actually cancels the claims of the law for each person.
That this is the case can be seen from the fact that if the claims of the law were cancelled for a particular person, that would be an effect of the atonement for that person.
In other words, it is confusion to say that the atonement is effective to all while simultaneously clami that it is effective only to some.
It is, specifically, the confusion of equivocation.
As I originally stated, it may seem to some readers that Shedd is suggesting that the laws claims are actually (not potentially) cancelled for all of humanity, but Shedd makes it very clear that he is referring to the intrinsic value of the atonement, and not an extrinsic effect of the atonement with respect to any particular person, except those for whom it is intended, who Shedd identifies as equal to the elect.
-Turretinfan
Well TF,
actually you took the very words right off my fingers, because that is exactly what I was going to post next but you got ahead of me, not your learned words, which I value as I do DP's, mind you, but these words of yours which I want to associate myself with and most likely will yield as well consternation? We shall see?
The Words of TF about DP responding to my words:
"This is really the final nail in the coffin for Ponter's position."
TF, Shedd's words shed some light on it for me so that I associate myself with yours in this instance.
Shedd as quoted by TF:
Provided with that additional context, we can see that when Shedd says: "Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly," (at page 437) he is not speaking as to the extent (as though the atonement extended to every man) but as to the nature (legal claim cancellation) and value (infinite).
I will say emphatically and unequivocally, humbly however that the only way any Elect will be saved is by the removal of the legal claims against us!
Now, that begs the question, if God is willing to extend "mercy" triumphing over His Holy and Rightesous "Justice", i.e., the legal claim He has against us in Adam's original sin inherited and our "actual and oft repeated sins", why is there a continuation of this enemy assaulting us day and night, i.e. Satan and his fallen angels, the Beast, the False Prophet, Death and Hades and those whose names are not found in the book of Life?
I mean, give me a break, the trials and tribulations of My Loving Father's Hand on my backside is nothing compared to the spiritual wickedness that continues to assault us!
So, no, Christ did not die for "all".
What the Bible does teach us is two things; one,
Mar 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
and two,
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
To the Elect, this is "Good News" that through the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Our Savior Who will save "His" people from their sins the legal claims against us which are as true as the devils taunts to God about them are no longer a barrier between us and Our God, the relationship is renewed with us that was lost in the Garden at the beginning.
To the reprobate: this same Gospel message is condemnation.
What is interesting to me is, while the demons shudder at these things, the reprobate do not! Cf. Psalms 37 and 73 as an aside.
And just so we understand where I am coming from, I am remaining very open for Seth's claims. At this time I am just not there where he has come too. He may be right and we may be wrong. He will have to bring me to where he is now. I will go where he brings me. When I get there "his" way, once there that way, I will know if I am right or not. I do have the Spirit of God. He cannot lie. I do continually! grrrr. In any event, we shall see. I want to have whatever Pride is working in me killed, and if this is the time for such a killing by the hands of Seth, I would it be soon and now as there are a lot of folks alive today who have never once "heard" the Name of Jesus because of the effectual works of the Devil our enemy who God Our Heavenly Father has promised to His Elect these same things when we in the fullness of the times and the fullness of the Power of the Holy Ghost work the Works of God in our generation:
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
And on the other hand, I would hope Seth, being brought back to a soundness of reason, would equally want to be found wrong if he is and repent as I say I am willing to repent if I am found to be wrong.
For the Elect to be wrong is a Gift of Faith by the Gift of Grace administered by the Gift of Christ as a Gift of God and the Holy Ghost, the Word of God.
Did I get them all? The Five solas?
Michael
Seth, if I might, I would go a bit further here into TF's reasoning:
TF:
First, it is confusion to assert that the legal claims of the law are cancelled with respect to any person, while asserting that such a person is guilty.
That this is confusion can be demonstrated in this way:
1. Justice demands that only the guilty be condemned.
2. Guilt is the result of violation of the law;
3. Violation of the law is contravention of the demands of the law;
4. If the demands of the law are removed, if it is impossible that they can be contravened;
5. If the law's demands cannot be contravened, the law cannot be violated.
6. If the law cannot be violated, there can be no guilt.
7. If there is no guilt, there can be no basis for judicial punishment.
8. Yet, some on the last day will be judged, which proves:
a) That they are guilty;
b) That they have violated the law;
c) That they have contravened the demands of the law; and
d) That, as to those people, the demands of the law have not been cancelled, destroyed, or otherwise removed.
My response:
I go to Scripture:
1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1Jn 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
Now just go along your pathway TF and put it side by side with John's here and also further down to this that he opens up for the Elect and for good reason I would claim:
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jn 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
1Jn 5:11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.
1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.
1Jn 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.
1Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
1Jn 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
So, to state it emphatically anew:
The Elect: those who "have" Eternal Life, i.e., "Knowing the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Sent".
The reprobate: 1Jn 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
What then might one ask about the reprobate?
Again I point to verses here:
Job 18:5 "Indeed, the light of the wicked is put out, and the flame of his fire does not shine.
Job 18:6 The light is dark in his tent, and his lamp above him is put out.
Job 18:7 His strong steps are shortened, and his own schemes throw him down.
Job 18:8 For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walks on its mesh.
Job 18:9 A trap seizes him by the heel; a snare lays hold of him.
Job 18:10 A rope is hidden for him in the ground, a trap for him in the path.
Job 18:11 Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels.
Job 18:12 His strength is famished, and calamity is ready for his stumbling.
Job 18:13 It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs.
Job 18:14 He is torn from the tent in which he trusted and is brought to the king of terrors.
Job 18:15 In his tent dwells that which is none of his; sulfur is scattered over his habitation.
Job 18:16 His roots dry up beneath, and his branches wither above.
Job 18:17 His memory perishes from the earth, and he has no name in the street.
Job 18:18 He is thrust from light into darkness, and driven out of the world.
Job 18:19 He has no posterity or progeny among his people, and no survivor where he used to live.
Job 18:20 They of the west are appalled at his day, and horror seizes them of the east.
Job 18:21 Surely such are the dwellings of the unrighteous, such is the place of him who knows not God."
What then is at the "end" of the world for those that are torn from their very tent and brought before the king of terrors, i.e. "the firstborn ""of"" death"?
Well, look, see where "death" is thrown and you will know:
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Are we getting somewhere now?
Here is clearly who the "firstborn of death" is, the king of terrors, Satan.
Here is clearly who the "firstborn "from" death is, the King of Terrors, Jesus Christ:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Michael
Moving on from the Shedd issue (which seems to be closed), here's my response as to the issue of whether "Them that are sanctified" = all those for whom the offering was made. (link)
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment