Contend Earnestly: Hebrews 10:10-14: Rebuttal By Turretinfan

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Hebrews 10:10-14: Rebuttal By Turretinfan



It seems that some are objecting to my presentation on Hebrews 10, on the basis that "them that are sanctified" in Hebrews 10:14, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," might (according to the objectors) refer to something less than the entire intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice. I went back and forth over whether a long or short argument should be presented, and the following is the short argument.

1. That it means all for whom the sacrifice was made, can be seen first from the parallel to verse 1.

In verse 1, it is written, Hebrews 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

This verse provides the basis of comparison against which Christ's sacrifice is observed to be better. But it appears that προσερχομενους (the comers) is the entire group for whom sacrifices were offered. As you will recall, the person for whom the priest offers the sacrifice is the person who came to the priest and brought the victim to be sacrificed.

Consider, for example:

Leviticus 15:14-15

14And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the LORD unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest: 15And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD for his issue.

It is the comers to the animal sacrifices that were the group for whom the animal sacrifices were made, but they were not made perfect by those sacrifices. In contrast, those for whom the sacrifice of Christ is made are made perfect by that sacrifice. Furthermore, this perfection is already once for all accomplished. The elect will be (and have been) justified in time, but the judicial reconciliation was accomplished on the cross.

2. We also see it in the parallels to other passages:

A. Hebrews 5:7-9

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Christ was made perfect as a priest so that he might perfect the intended beneficiaries of his sacrifice: namely those that obey him (aka the elect). This reemphasizes the point above that the single purpose of Christ's sacrificial work was to save the elect.

B. Hebrews 7:19

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

It is here written that the law (that is, the animal sacrifice system) did not make anyone perfect, which is contrasted with the sacrifice of Christ, which did, and by which we can approach God. This reemphasizes that the difference between the old and new sacrifice is that the former did not make its intended beneficiaries perfect, whereas the new does.

C. Hebrews 9:7-12

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Here again we see the glorious perfection of Christ compared and contrasted to the impotent animal sacrifices. Christ did not have to offer for his own sins, and when he came into the holy place he came with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. This reemphasizes the point above that the reconciliation is already bought - already paid for - and that the execution of that reconciliation is now a matter of justice as between Christ as advocate and the godhead. That is to say, Christ has obtained eternal redemption for the elect, and consequently the elect will not perish.

3. The opposite hypothesis (i.e. that "them which are sanctified" is a subgroup of the intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice) is without support in the text.

That is to say, the text gives no hint that there is some other group that is intended to benefit, but that is not perfected by the sacrifice. Furthermore, if such were the case, it would break down the parallel to the Old Testament above. For the old sacrifices contain no parallel to such a bifurcation in the intent of the sacrifice's benefits.

4. The warning passage in verses 26-29 cannot resuscitate a multiple intention view - instead, it fully undermines it.

Hebrews 10:26-29

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The reason it cannot help the multiple intention view is that in order to press this warning into service, they must state that Christ was sacrificed (vs. 26) for this hypothetical man who was judged, and that consequently he was "sanctified" (vs. 29). This, of course, reinforces the point above, that those for whom the sacrifice was made are equivalent to the sanctified group. The same word for "sanctified" is even used in both cases. Yet, we learn from verse 14 that Christ perfected them that are sanctified. Accordingly, we see that any objection from verses 26-29 just reinforces the original point.

That concludes the short form of the argument.

51 comments:

Turretinfan said...

Thanks for posting this, Seth!

I am looking forward to your answers to the further questions that had been set out.

Let me know if you need me to recopy them!

-Turretinfan

David said...

Well it’s a new year and all that.

To explain my absence, I’ve been a little sick, then we had holidays and then some more bugs. Seth pointed me to this latest.

Let me dive in. But once again, please do not republish my material at any other site without my permission.

To sum the argument. From Heb 10:14, TF wants to prove–and I will use short-hand–that all “the died for” are sanctified. From this he argues a little reductio, Christ could not have died for the reprobate because they are not sanctified, however, if one is died for, in is inexorably sanctified.

We pointed out his fallacy. The verse says only this,

These died for ones are sanctified.

We challenged TF to prove not that premise, but this one

ALL the died for ones are sanctified.

He needs the universal to prove the universal negation: Christ did not die for any reprobate, etc (however you want to word the negation).

Again he needs, “all died for ones are sanctified.”

So what is his strategy? His strategy is to simply extend his fallacious argument. TF, you need to go find someone who is an expert in formal logic whom you respect and who can explain to you the problem of your fallacy.

What you have done here is just extend the fallacy. Like this, fallacy X with regard to A is suppported by invoking the same fallacy X with regard to B, and again with regard to C. Do this enough times and somehow fallacy A will look sound. Thats all you have done

To the text:

cut.

TF: 1. That it means all for whom the sacrifice was made, can be seen first from the parallel to verse 1.

In verse 1, it is written, Hebrews 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

This verse provides the basis of comparison against which Christ's sacrifice is observed to be better. But it appears that (the comers) is the entire group for whom sacrifices were offered. As you will recall, the person for whom the priest offers the sacrifice is the person who came to the priest and brought the victim to be sacrificed.

[cut]

Leviticus 15:14-15

It is the comers to the animal sacrifices that were the group for whom the animal sacrifices were made, but they were not made perfect by those sacrifices. In contrast, those for whom the sacrifice of Christ is made are made perfect by that sacrifice. Furthermore, this perfection is already once for all accomplished. The elect will be (and have been) justified in time, but the judicial reconciliation was accomplished on the cross.

David: This is just more fallacious reasoning. But there are two fallacies here, to be honest. To the first one. Lets convert the short-hand terms. These comers are died for. Lets grant that this verse proves this by way of sound inference. It does not say, all died for are comers.

We still have the same fallacy. But now TF wants to supplement it by a basic induction fallacy. David sees one white swan, then another and another, sheesh a whole flock white swans, and concludes that all Swans are white. So there is no proper and equivalent comparison here.

He provides an instance where individuals (particulars) who “came” with a sacrificial offering and were so sanctified. Of course we grant that all this was in terms of the anti-typical sacrificial and covenant construct of the OT.

Anyone with any basic logic training can see the problem here. Its true, anyone who came according to OT case law to make an offering, was ‘sanctified’ by that offering. Does that prove all died for were sanctified? No. Does it prove that all for whom ANY OT offering was made were sanctified?

Counter-factual: The yearly sacrifice was made for ALL the people, for all the sins, all the wickednesses etc. Lev 16.TF would have to say that here in Lev 16, the coded sub-text meant only all the sins of the elect of Israel were imputed to the sacrificial offering. I find that incredible to sustain.

But heck we don’t even need this counter-factual. It’s a simple inductive fallacy coupled with a invalid negative inference. He cannot know his universal conclusion from the a simple positive premise.

TF:

2. We also see it in the parallels to other passages:

A. Hebrews 5:7-9

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

David: Again, the same fallacy. Lets change the short-hand to make this clear: all obedient ones are died for.

That is not All died for are obedient ones [ie become obedient I assume].

Then we have the gratutious statement which is just question begging and pleading.

TF: Christ was made perfect as a priest so that he might perfect the intended beneficiaries of his sacrifice: namely those that obey him (aka the elect). This reemphasizes the point above that the single purpose of Christ's sacrificial work was to save the elect.

David: See the ambiguity here. TF need to consult a logician TF. Christ makes perfect the intended beneficiaries? We are back to the same ambiguity he hedged on before. Is that all the intended beneficiaries? It does not say that. If we say Christ’s sacrificial work was intended to save those for whom he especially died for, ie the elect, then we would agree. But this text does not prove the claim that Christ had a single purpose etc etc.

The text does say, these intended beneficiaries are sanctified and died for.

David: Now the same fallacy is repeated a third time.


TF: B. Hebrews 7:19

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

It is here written that the law (that is, the animal sacrifice system) did not make anyone perfect, which is contrasted with the sacrifice of Christ, which did, and by which we can approach God. This reemphasizes that the difference between the old and new sacrifice is that the former did not make its intended beneficiaries perfect, whereas the new does.

David: Let’s change it again. These drawing-near ones are died for. Thats not the same as all died for are brought near. Again, this verse only proves this: these died for ones are sanctified it does not prove all died for ones are sanctified.


TF:

C. Hebrews 9:7-12

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

David: And in the context he speaks to those who have believed, who have approached the throne of grace: Heb 4:16. Any person not so pressed with an agendum like Tfs would see this passage as a reference to believers.


TF: Here again we see the glorious perfection of Christ compared and contrasted to the impotent animal sacrifices. Christ did not have to offer for his own sins, and when he came into the holy place he came with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. This reemphasizes the point above that the reconciliation is already bought - already paid for - and that the execution of that reconciliation is now a matter of justice as between Christ as advocate and the godhead. That is to say, Christ has obtained eternal redemption for the elect, and consequently the elect will not perish.

David: I still cant see how you can not avoid the problem of all the elect being justified on the cross. The idea that the present participle of Heb 10:14 should be seen as exactly identical in function as the perfect, such that all the elect were sanctified on the cross is just crazy. You still have not even dealt with the false extension or hasty generalisation. But I will leave that aside.

TF:
3. The opposite hypothesis (i.e. that "them which are sanctified" is a subgroup of the intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice) is without support in the text.

That is to say, the text gives no hint that there is some other group that is intended to benefit, but that is not perfected by the sacrifice. Furthermore, if such were the case, it would break down the parallel to the Old Testament above. For the old sacrifices contain no parallel to such a bifurcation in the intent of the sacrifice's benefits.

David:

Well now the argument has ended. What TF says here is just aside and off-topic. We are not using this verse to prove anything at this stage. “Without support”... :-) That it’s a reference to believers seems to have completely escaped TF. But now, we have not argued that this verse “gives hint of other intended beneficiaries.”

David: I pass over the hypothetical stuff as 1) its just crazy, and 2) its more off the point. The point is, TF needs to prove this from Heb 10:14: All died for ones are sanctified. But the verse only proves this: these died for ones are sanctified. Adding other instances where “comers” are sanctified, or “obedient-ones” are sanctified changes nothing because the same false conversion is invoked. He has claimed that this verse (Heb 10:14) proves positively his case. We are still waiting to see the logic derived from the verse itself.

However, it is apparent that TF has not–even to this day–properly understood the nature of his fallacious reasoning on Heb 10:14 else he would not have just invoked the same fallacy over and over again. But clearly he knows that he has a problem with Heb 10:14, because he clearly knew he had to supplement it. But for some odd reason, he falls back into the same fallacious hole.

TF just needs to realise that he is wrong here and needs to prove his case from some other verse and argument. Of course, he can continue to argue his case in one big nasty circular logic if he wishes, but its not helping anyone.

David

Turretinfan said...

I see David has stated his opinion.

If anyone thinks he raises even one point worth responding to, please let me know, otherwise I'll just let it stand as a monument to his manner of conversation and inability to use terms like "fallacy" correctly.

-Turretinfan

David said...

Well TF,

With respect, if you are not trained in formal logic, you really need to consult with someone who is. There is just no way to avoid this. You can repeat the same fallacy over and over, but its not gonna make the first one valid.

I also find it hard to believe you have not anticipated the above responses. If you didnt, then you really dont understand what you are doing. If you did, but went ahead and posted the arguments anyway, thats just strange.

David

Turretinfan said...

With whatever respect is due, David, if you were trained in formal logic, you should ask for a refund.

I've read your comments, but I don't see anything worth responding to.

Anybody can spout off, but I don't have to respond to every effluence.

As I noted in my previous comment, if anyone else sees even one comment from your meandering screed that they think should be addressed, I'll try to address it.

-Turretinfan

David said...

Tf, once again, you really need to get a grip. If my tone is abrasive--and I will grant that it can come across like that--your tone is just insulting.

If you want to go down this line of attack, I see no point.

I am still surprised by your formal response. And I am still surprised by the broader question of: What historic classic broader Reformed sources are you relying on to supply your exegesis and theological claims? I can only find Gill adopting your take on Heb 10:14. Owen makes a comment as to implication, but he is not where you are at. How can you call yourself a Reformed apologist in any of this argumentation?

This idea that all the elect were 'judicially reconciled' on the cross is just bizarre theology. Its Gillite, perhaps, but not Reformed. And that we were somehow judicially reconciled on the cross, but judicially justified later in time when we believe is just another bizarre claim. What classic Reformed theologian believed that? Are you clutching at something like Witsius' threefold justification schema?

But man, if you just want to be insulting, have at it. :-)

David

David said...

Seeing you are once again getting all bent out of shape, I will pick up on this typo from me:

David: See the ambiguity here. TF need to consult a logician. TF, 'Christ makes perfect the intended beneficiaries'? We are back to the same ambiguity he hedged on before. Is that all the intended beneficiaries? It does not say that. If we say Christ’s sacrificial work was intended to save those for whom he especially died for, ie the elect, then we would agree. But this text does not prove the claim that Christ had a single purpose etc etc.

David Now. I left off a period before the second TF, as what followed was meant to be a paraphrased quotation as a question.

David

Magnus said...

Good to see this up and going again.

My question is probably easy, but I will ask anyway. When Jesus says that his blood is poured out for many why did he not say all?

It seems that if everyone’s sins are forgiven and the only thing missing is the application of it then why would Jesus not have said that his blood is poured out for all? If I understand it correctly then I would see that in the OT the blood was shed for all and then God would apply it to the chosen ones. In the NT though the blood is shed for many and not all because all of the ‘elect’ are in view and there would be no more need to shed it for all. Trying to clarify this, the OT treats the nation as a whole as being the elect, but not everyone in the nation were of the ‘elect’. In the NT we no longer have a general body to point one too like we had in the OT in the nation of Israel. I hope that this makes sense to someone here other than me:) and any help on this from anyone here would be greatly appreciated.

Turretinfan said...

David,

I can't make up my mind as to whether your object is to intentionally misrepresent the Reformers and undermine Reformed theology, or you honestly believe the stuff you produce.

Either way, for now, I still do not see even one point in your initial comment that deserves any further consideration.

If one hapless reader thinks otherwise, and finds something more than simply "everything you said is a fallacy, and you need to go buy a logic book, then I'll consider addressing it.

Likewise, I'm not going to waste my time harmonizing Gill with Owen, when I know full well you reject Owen and the Reformed position held by both him, Gill, Edwards, Hodge(s), Shedd, etc. etc.

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

Dear Magnus,

You raise a valid point, and that verse would certainly be one I'd eventually turn to in this debate.

-Turretinfan

David said...

Hey Magnus,

There is properly no 'all' in Hebrew. So to cover the sense of all, they used the plural rabbim to denote all. At other times it is used to denote some, a great number, etc.

Theologically, not all the Reformed took the many in Isaiah and its repeated instances in the NT as some. Calvin for example:

I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that “he bore the sin of many,” though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word (rabbim,) to denote “Great and Noble.” And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while “he was ranked among transgressors,” became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that “many” sometimes denotes “all.” Calvin, Isa 53:12.


“And to give his life a ransom for many.” Christ mentioned his death, as we have said, in order to withdraw his disciples from the foolish imagination of an earthly kingdom. But it is a just and appropriate statement of its power and results, when he declares that his life is the price of our redemption; whence it follows, that we obtain an undeserved reconciliation with God, the price of which is to be found nowhere else than in the death of Christ. Wherefore, this single word overturns all the idle talk of the Papists about their abominable satisfactions. Again, while Christ has purchased us by his death to be his property, this submission, of which he speaks, is so far from diminishing his boundless glory, that it greatly increases its splendor. The word “many” (pollon) is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race. Calvin, Matt 20:28.

“Which is shed for many.” By the word “many” he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke--Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated. Calvin, Mark 14:24.

“To bear,” or, “take away sins”, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that not all receive benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them. At the same time this question is not to be discussed here, for the Apostle is not speaking of the few or of the many to whom the death of Christ may be available; but he simply means that he died for others and not for himself; and therefore he opposes many to one. Calvin, Heb 9:28.

I am setting my emotional-guage to measure how "up-set" Tf will get on this one. :-)

But in all seriousness, Calvin goes to great length to claim that the many is not some, but all, the whole human race, the whole world, etc.

Bullinger, Musculus and others take a similar position.

David

Turretinfan said...

כּל
is
Hebrew for
all.
-Turretinfan

David said...

TF, no that means each, whole, everyone, etc.
It does not properly denote all.

Do you want me to grap some hebrew lexicons?

I am pretty sure I am right on this.

Take this for example:
the whole, 1. with foll. gen. (as usually) the whole of, to be rendered, however, often in our idiom, to avoid stiffness, all or every: a. the whole of; = all. With a plural noun, usu. determined by the art. or a genitive: the whole of (= all).

Its rendered all to avoid idiomatic woodenness, but in itself its not properly "all".

Do you have any of the critical Hebrew lexicons, TF? Do you want me to scan some for you?

David

David said...

Here is a post from a friend of mine from some time ago. It has some helpful points on rabbim but mostly on the NT equivalent, hoi polloi:

I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that "he
bore the sin of many," though we might without
impropriety consider the Hebrew word Mybr (rabbim,) to
denote "Great and Noble." And thus the contrast would
be more complete, that Christ, while "he was ranked
among transgressors," became surety for every one of
the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the
room of those who hold the highest rank in the world.
I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I
approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore
the punishment of many, because on him was laid the
guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other
passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, that "many" sometimes denotes
"all."
[Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah, Isa 53.12]

hOI POLLOI not "many" but all (who are many), the fact
of a great number being more prominent to the Sem.
mind than the fact of totality, cf. Mt 20:28
[Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT, Rom
5.15]

hOI POLLOI means "all," but present the "all" as a
great number.
[Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament, Rom 5.15]

By the many are intended all mankind, hOI POLLOI and
PANTES being interchanged throughout the context. They
are called the many because they are many, and for the
sake of the antithesis to the one.
[Hodge, Commentary on Romans, Rom 5.15]

Many - Greek, “The many.” Evidently meaning all; the
whole race; Jews and Gentiles. That it means all here
is proved in Rom_5:18. If the inquiry be, why the
apostle used the word “many” rather than all, we may
reply, that the design was to express an antithesis,
or contrast to the cause - one offence. One stands
opposed to many, rather than to all.
[Barnes, Commentary on Romans, Rom 5.15]

It is agreed that where Paul uses many men in this
verse the equivalent is “all men” (see verse 12, the
whole human race, literally “all men”)...As in verse
15, so here many men is equivalent in meaning to “all
men.”
[Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. A Handbook on Paul's
Letter to the Romans. UBS handbook series; Helps for
Translators, Rom 5.15]

This is a very clear instance of “many” being used as
an idiom for “all,” for certainly all are sinners (Ro
3:23).
[Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Ro.
5.19]

"the many" (hOI POLLOI) in both cases (but with
different meaning as with "all men" above).
[Robertson's Word Pictures, Ro 5:19]

The “all men” of Ro 5:18 and the “many” of Ro 5:19 are
the same party, though under a slightly different
aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between
the one representative (Adam—Christ) and the many whom
he represented; in the former case, it is between the
one head (Adam—Christ) and the human race, affected
for death and life respectively by the actings of that
one.
[JFB Commentary, Rom 5.19]

with the article hOI POLLOI; (i) with an exclusive
(Greek) sense most (but not all), the majority (only
MT 24.12 and 2C 2.17); (ii) with an inclusive
(Semitic) sense elsewhere; all (present), the whole
community, the whole (crowd) (HE 12.15); (c) POLLOI in
reference to the saving work of Jesus in MK 10.45;
14.24; RO 5.16; and HE 9.28, the Semitic inclusive
sense is to be understood, i.e. Jesus died for all
(cf. JN 6.51; 1T 2.6; HE 2.9);
[Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, s.v.
POLUS]

ALL, MANY Statements which apply to the totality of a
group may be amde from two different standpoints. On
the one hand, stress may be laid on the group as a
whole. In this case Gk. uses PAS, or its plur. PANTES.
The sing., like hOLOS, can also mean "whole", a
meaning also borne occasionally by POLLOI...

POLLOI

CL hOI POLLOI (plur. of POLUS) has in secular Gk. the
meaning of the most, the majority, great multitude.

OT In the LXX it often represents the Heb. rabbim,
which tends to mean "all". Hence the Gk. use of the
word draws a distinction between the many (but not
all) and the rest, a majority as contrasted with a
minority. But Heb. use, and hence that of the Gk. of
the LXX is capable of an inclusive meaning denoting
the many individuals in a totality. A possible residue
may not be considered (cf. Deut 7.1; 15.6; 28.12; Isa
52.14f; Ezek 39.27)...

NT ...Elsewhere in the NT hOI POLLOI ma have the
summarizing meanign of the OT, e.g., Mk 6.2 (Lk 4.22,
the parallel passage has "all"), "the large
congreatation who heard him" (NEB); Mk 9.26, "most of
them said" (RSV - but in fact "all of them said"); Rom
5.15, "For if the wrong doing of that one man brought
death upon so many" (NEB), i.e., "all".

In the section Rom 5.15-21 "the many" in the sense of
all are contrasted with the one who puts an end to the
dominating power of sin and death. Through Adam we see
what Christ achieves. As through one man sin and death
came to all, so also through one individual man,
Jesus, righteousness and life was brought to all. That
hOI POLLOI has here a summarizing meaning can be seen
from the context. To translate "most men had to die"
would be meaningless. The meaning is indicatged in v.
15 by the parallels in v. 12 and 1 Cor. 15.22 which
have PANTES meaning all, and in v. 19 by v. 18 with
its PANTES (cf. also 11.32). Besides all this, the
section has clear references to Isa 53.11f, which
makes an interpretation in the Heb. sense the more
likely. Paul contrasts here the totality of the
descendants of Adam with the totality of believers. He
leaves it an open question whether the totality of
believers will ever include the whole of mankind.
[Brown, The New International Dictionary of NT
Theology, s.v. ALL MANY]

A. Inclusive Meaning in Judaism. I. The OT. 1. As
Noun. a. With Article. In Greek POLLOI is used
exclusively (“the many” as distinct from “all”), but
in the OT it has an inclusive sense, due to the fact
that Hebrew has no plural word for “all.” This is
especially clear when the article occurs (cf. 1 Kgs.
18:25; Is. 53:11; Dan. 9:27). b. Without Article. Even
without the article the use is often inclusive, as in
Pss. 109:30; 71:7; Ex. 23:2. 2. As Adjective.
Inclusive use of the adjective is found only in the
_expression “the [whole] host of peoples” (cf. Is.
2:2-4; 52:15). 3. Is. 52:13-53:12. Four instances of
the noun and one of the adjective occur in this
section (52:14; 53:11, 12; 52:15). While the reference
is obscure, there is little doubt that the use is
inclusive in every case, as shown by the _expression
in 52:15, the use of the article in 53:11, 12, the
parallel in 53:12, and later interpretation... B.
Inclusive Meaning in the NT. I. Passages Not Relating
to Is. 53. 1. As Noun. a. With Article. An exclusive
sense (“most”) may be found in the NT only in Mt.
24:12 and 2 Cor. 2:17. In Rom. 5:15 the meaning and
context both support an inclusive sense. Other Pauline
instances are Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 10:17. Elsewhere cf.
Mk. 6:2; 9:26; Heb. 12:15 (“the many” for “the
community”). b. Without Article. Parallel passages
show that without the article, too, polloí may have an
inclusive meaning (cf. Mk. 1:32). In Mt. 8:11 the
point is that great numbers will come. The polloí of
Lk. 1:14 are the saved people. In Lk. 2:34-35 some
will fall and some will be raised up, but the thoughts
of all of them will be disclosed. In Jn. 5:28 an
inclusive use is obvious, and both the noun and the
adjective of 2 Cor. 1:11 are inclusive. Mt. 20:16
takes the rule of Mk. 10:31 inclusively, but Lk. 13:30
gives it an exclusive application. In Mt. 22:14 we
have a formal antithesis between great and small
numbers, but materially the many represent the
totality; the invitation embraces all, but the choice
falls only on the few. Appended to the parable, the
statement applies the invitation to both Jews and
Gentiles. 2. As Adjective. Rom. 4:11 suggests that
when Paul quotes Gen. 17:5 in Rom. 4:17 he has all
nations in view. As an adjective polloí is also
inclusive in 2 Cor. 1:11; Heb. 2:10; Lk. 7:47 (“as
many as there are”).
[Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
s.v. POLLOI]

Turretinfan said...

Ah, the cut-n-paste explosion continues.

In fact, when applied to a group, "kol" means "all" because the whole of a group is the same concept as all the group.

That's why the very lexicon from which you cut and pasted includes the "=all" in its entry (twice!).

And, of course, for completeness, we could add:
מלא
which can also mean "all", depending on the context, of course.

I find it amusing that the focus is on rabbim (presumably on the tenuous assumption that Jesus originally said the words in Aramaic) when we have inspired authority for pollos (many) not pantas (all), even if that is simply an inspired translation of an Aramaic word that we has not been provided to us.

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

"that we has not been provided to us" should be "that has not been provided to us."

Magnus said...

So ALL does not mean all sometimes and MANY means all?

I have a hard enough time with the all not being all, now I have to say that many really means all. I still do not see why Jesus would not say- this is my blood ... which is shed for all, instead he said many which apparently means all anyway???

Any time I look up the word that Mark uses as many in 14:24 I come up with it meaning many, much or large. I never see it as all.

David said...

Hey TF,

Thats it, thats your response? Will this ever be productive?

My first citation said this: the whole, all -- the whole, 1. with foll. gen. (as usually) the whole of, to be rendered, however, often in our idiom, to avoid stiffness, all or every.

David: Its to be rendered all or every for idiomatic smoothness in translation.

I stand by my original statement. Its backed up by the comment from Kittell which I posted: "A. Inclusive Meaning in Judaism. I. The OT. 1. As Noun. a. With Article. In Greek POLLOI is used
exclusively (“the many” as distinct from “all”), but
in the OT it has an inclusive sense, due to the fact
that Hebrew has no plural word for “all.”
"

You just want to say that 'whole' is exactly identical or equivalent to all semantically? Okay. I say its not exactly the same but we can translate it "all" to fit our idiom better.

Now you want to throw in the word for fullness?

There is no proper exact word for all in Hebrew. One has to use there expressions to express the idea.

But who cares. Lets say the two hebrew words you have cited properly and directly mean "all" in Hebrew... what follows?

My original point, while true, is such a small point. It was thrown in there to help Magnus understand why the author of one instance has rabbim and that rabbim can mean all.

You want to score points over this, then take it with the Kittell dictionary or other works, not me.

Moving on, TF:

I find it amusing that the focus is on rabbim (presumably on the tenuous assumption that Jesus originally said the words in Aramaic) when we have inspired authority for pollos (many) not pantas (all), even if that is simply an inspired translation of an Aramaic word that we has not been provided to us.

David: Okay. Never assume anything, TF, cos you know what they say when you assume something.... :-) The fact is that most commentators think that Jesus is quoting or citing the reference from Isa 53, but we have that as hoi polloi. My original point is that one should not make the simplistic claim that rabbim in Isa 53 means, at the semantic level, some of all, and not all. And to that end, I cited Calvin; and then I cited others who point out that the word can denote all and its NT equivalent can also denote 'all'.

Take care,
David

Turretinfan said...

David,

It's (kol is) rendered by "all" (and "panta" in Greek and "omnes" in Latin) because that's its sense. That's what it means.

Kol means all, and if Jesus wanted to say "shed for all" he had a word available in Aramaic (and Greek and Latin) that meant that.

I'm surprised it is difficult for you to understand this. Or perhaps it is merely difficult for you to say, "I goofed. I meant that 'rabbim' does not properly mean 'all.' Of course, 'kol' and 'malo' mean all."

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

And to point out what would be obvious if you knew Hebrew, it could be true that "Hebrew has no plural word for “all”" while simultaneously being the case that kol is a singular word with a plural sense.

The problem is not that you lack reference materials.

-Turretinfan

David said...

Hey Magnus,

You say:
So ALL does not mean all sometimes and MANY means all?

David: Well now for TF, all can mean some of all lots of times. ;-)

For myself, all means all. Many means all sometimes, and sometimes it means a large group, as opposed to others.

Rabbim in Hebrew is a little more fluid than our English. One cannot simply assert that 'many' means some and not all.

Magnus: I have a hard enough time with the all not being all, now I have to say that many really means all.

David: I agree with the first part. As for Many scope out Romans 5 and see how Paul uses many and all interchangeably. All in Adam is the many in Adam who die.

Magnus: I still do not see why Jesus would not say- this is my blood ... which is shed for all, instead he said many which apparently means all anyway???

David: If you were a Jew, you might hear him as saying shed for all, because you would know that at times rabbim meant all. If you were a Greek Jew and if Jesus said this in Greek, you would also know that the phrase "hoi polloi" can also be used to denote all.

If you were Calvin, you would hear in the word "many" all too.

What Calvin and others are saying is that rabbim and its Septuagint equivalent came to denote "all" as a Jewish idiomatic expression at times.

Magnus: Any time I look up the word that Mark uses as many in 14:24 I come up with it meaning many, much or large. I never see it as all.

David: It may turn out that the sense of that verse is many, simply, a large group. I am not making any claim on that directly. My point is that one cannot simply assert apriori, that hoi polloi means some of all (Owen and Gill), even a large some of all. :-)

After all, as Calvin says, the stress is not on who the blood was not shed for, but on whom it was shed for.

Take care,
David

Magnus said...

David,

Maybe you could clear this up for me a bit more. When I read Mark 14:24 where Jesus says many are you saying that here the word should be all?

Looking at my NASB it refers me to Jer 31:31-34 where we learn of the new covenant and that this is what Jesus was alluding too. Now if I understand correctly this is the new covenant that applies only to the elect. If it applies only to the elect and Jesus says in Mark that this is the blood of the new covenant that is poured out for many then would it not make sense to say that the many are the elect? If Jesus had said all here would it then not mean that all are in this new covenant that the Lord has made with His people?

I could of course be way off base here and if I am I would hope that you could show me the error in my thinking on this

Also, it looks like TF has pointed out that if Jesus wanted to use the word all here that he had a more appropriate word available in any of the languages that was common in that time.

When you write this It may turn out that the sense of that verse is many, simply, a large group. I am not making any claim on that directly. My point is that one cannot simply assert apriori, that hoi polloi means some of all (Owen and Gill), even a large some of all. does that mean that in this verse that I am looking at in Mark that many can mean many rather than all?

I agree that context should be key, but I guess I was hearing/reading you as saying that many means all and that is that. To me it seems that many here makes sense rather than all based on what I wrote above. Thanks for your time on this.

David said...

Hey Magnus

Magnus: Looking at my NASB it refers me to Jer 31:31-34 where we learn of the new covenant and that this is what Jesus was alluding too.

David: Oh, well my understanding that it’s a reference to the suffering servant in Isa 53:11-12 etc.

Magnus: Now if I understand correctly this is the new covenant that applies only to the elect.
David: I am not a baptist.

Magnus: If it applies only to the elect and Jesus says in Mark that this is the blood of the new covenant that is poured out for many then would it not make sense to say that the many are the elect? If Jesus had said all here would it then not mean that all are in this new covenant that the Lord has made with His people?

David: Isaiah 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Magnus: I could of course be way off base here and if I am I would hope that you could show me the error in my thinking on this

David: Well I was not thinking the reference was to Jere 31. Sorry about that.

Magnus: Also, it looks like TF has pointed out that if Jesus wanted to use the word all here that he had a more appropriate word available in any of the languages that was common in that time.

David: Thats the problem of second guessing someone. If the term had an idiomatic history, then there is no reason why he could not have used the idiomatic expression and in doing so, denote all.

Magnus: When you write this It may turn out that the sense of that verse is many, simply, a large group. I am not making any claim on that directly. My point is that one cannot simply assert apriori, that hoi polloi means some of all (Owen and Gill), even a large some of all. does that mean that in this verse that I am looking at in Mark that many can mean many rather than all?

I agree that context should be key, but I guess I was hearing/reading you as saying that many means all and that is that. To me it seems that many here makes sense rather than all based on what I wrote above. Thanks for your time on this.

David: I had said: “There is properly no 'all' in Hebrew. So to cover the sense of all, they used the plural rabbim to denote all. At other times it is used to denote some, a great number, etc.”

That was my opening remark see above.

David now:
Sometimes it can mean all, sometimes it can mean some. The person makes a covenant a with the many in Dan 9:27; here it is not all as in all mankind. In the other instances, it can mean all mankind. As for the passage in Mark, Calvin clearly takes it to mean all mankind, with no exception.

To TF. I gotta say, I’ve been going back and forth on your last post. A singular word with a plural sense is still not identical with “all”. But all that aside, TF, you are just plain insulting and mean. You really need to stand back and look at your own attitude here. There is little humility or godliness in your responses to me that I can see. You need to rethink your motives. I will leave it that, cos your attitude really sucks and is offensive at times, and I don’t want to let myself be dragged down into that same attitude.

David

David said...

TF,

If I have misunderstood the sources posted or BDB or the Kittell Dictionary, thats possible. I dont have a problem there. But point me to where I have misunderstood those works. That will work for me, but insulting me will only make me dig my heels in harder.

I freely confess Hebrew is not a strong point of mine.

Ive have scoped out some other Hebrew lexicons and they are defining kol as all, without the apparent qualifier in BDB. So I will retract that that claim of mine. Tomorrow Ill shoot an email off to an hebraist friend of mine and see what he says.

But to be clear, I am not basing any argument on that. All I need to say is that sometimes "many" means all (Calvin).

David

Turretinfan said...

If David wants to make "many" in Isaiah 53:11 mean "all" he's got bigger worries than being treated as an Amyraldian:

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

If the "many" in Isaiah 53 refers to all mankind, then all mankind are justified.

Universalism - the logical conclusion of Amyraldianism.

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

David,

I appreciate the qualified retraction. I look forward to the report from your Hebraist friend.

-Turretinfan

David said...

TF says: If David wants to make "many" in Isaiah 53:11 mean "all" he's got bigger worries than being treated as an Amyraldian:

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

David: Remember what I said about assuming things. I am not committed to Calvin's take on the verse. I only expressed his opinion on it. For him, the many is the whole human race. The application of it, in justification, however, justification is conditional.


TF: If the "many" in Isaiah 53 refers to all mankind, then all mankind are justified.

David: Calvin was a universalist then. :-)

TF: Universalism - the logical conclusion of Amyraldianism.

David: Baloney :-)

Calvin again: He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. Calvin. Romans 5:18.

“To bear,” or, “take away sins”, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that not all receive benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them. At the same time this question is not to be discussed here, for the Apostle is not speaking of the few or of the many to whom the death of Christ may be available; but he simply means that he died for others and not for himself; and therefore he opposes many to one. Calvin, Heb 9:28.

David

Seth McBee said...

I am sorry that I have been MIA, but being gone from work for 10 days will do that to you. I am backed up right now and will have to take a look at all this when I get some time and then we will probably move on with a quick concluding post and then another verse(s) to look at.

Hope all is well with everyone.

Keep the comments and thoughts as charitable as possible as we need to understand that I believe we are all brothers in Christ here and just need to work out our theology in this area, as well with many others.

Turretinfan said...

David,

Whether or not Calvin held it or you yourself hold what you think Calvin held,

the very next verse identifies the many whose sins he bore with those for whom he intercedes:

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So, again, if "many" here means "all" then Christ intercedes for all, which concludes with either denying the efficacy of Christ's intercession or universalism.

Conditional justification (which is a useful concept in theology, though not for what one might think it means) does not help, because of the further connection both to substitution and intercession.
-Turretinfan

David said...

Reposted post:

TF, you are committing the same fallacy again.

You need a premise that says something like this: All the died for are interceded for.

And of course the assumption is that the intercession here is effectual.

So your argument has to have those two steps established.

However, all you have here, assuming that the many means the elect, these died for are interceded for.

I know you wont get this, you keep stumbling over it cos you don’t like it. But not liking some of the laws of logic will never make them go away. :-)

TF: the very next verse identifies the many whose sins he bore with those for whom he intercedes:

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

David: Now, I am not committed to saying Christ only intercedes for the elect. I don’t have a problem with Christ praying for the world Jn 17:21,22. Christ praying on the cross for his murderers, and there is another one. Again, Shedd:
Again, in his sacerdotal prayer (John 17:2), our Lord represents the whole result of his mediatorial work as dependent upon election: “Thou hast given thy Son power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast , given him.” He also emphazises the discrimination between the elect and non-elect, by saying (John 17:9): “I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” The Redeemer does not say that he never prayed for the whole sinful world of mankind; for he did this whenever he uttered the supplication, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven;” but on that particular occasion he confines his supplications to a part of the world, namely, the elect.
Dogmatic Theology, 3:420-421.

You should read Calvin on Jesus’ prayer for his killers on the cross.

David: You gotta figure out that logic problem you have. You are stumbling on the extension of the major premise, and are just converting simple statements into universal distributions.

TF: So, again, if "many" here means "all" then Christ intercedes for all, which concludes with either denying the efficacy of Christ's intercession or universalism.

David: Why should Calvin or anyone assume that Christ can only pray for the elect or that every prayer of his has to be effectual?

TF: Conditional justification (which is a useful concept in theology, though not for what one might think it means) does not help, because of the further connection both to substitution and intercession.

David: But thats your doctrine, you have not established that it was Calvin’s.

So like I said, even if the many here are the elect, then for these elect, Christ prays–thats what this text is saying. We are back to your need to establish a universal major premise.

David

Magnus said...

David,

Thanks for the interaction on this and I hope that I can clear this up in my head soon.

One thing though when you wrote “I am not a baptist.” I have no idea what if any meaning that has on this. I am not a Baptist either.

As for the Mark 14:24 many being all I still do not see it. I understand that you say Calvin said it, but I am not a Calvinist so that means very little to me. If we take Mark 14 as alluding to Jeremiah than I can not see how many = all here. Even looking at Isaiah 53 I can not see many = all there either. I do believe that Jeremiah would be a better fit here since it talks of the new covenant and in Mark it also talks of a new covenant. I do not see Isaiah talking of a new covenant in chapter 53, unless I am missing it.

Not to put words or thoughts into your responses, but is the gist of your claim that many = all in Mark 14 based on fact that that is what Calvin said? If not, then please forgive me and I do not mean anything sinister by that, but looking at the context of Mark 14 and referencing the verses in Jeremiah I can not see how many here means all.

David said...

Hey Magnus:


Magnus:
One thing though when you wrote “I am not a baptist.” I have no idea what if any meaning that has on this. I am not a Baptist either.

David: You said something like the NC only contains the believers or elect. I am running out of time here. I may have misread you.

Magnus: As for the Mark 14:24 many being all I still do not see it. I understand that you say Calvin said it, but I am not a Calvinist so that means very little to me. If we take Mark 14 as alluding to Jeremiah than I can not see how many = all here. Even looking at Isaiah 53 I can not see many = all there either. I do believe that Jeremiah would be a better fit here since it talks of the new covenant and in Mark it also talks of a new covenant. I do not see Isaiah talking of a new covenant in chapter 53, unless I am missing it.

David: I think it can be both, but the reference to pouring out his blood (Hebraic idiom for life) for many is a reference to Isa 53 for sure. And so, a Jew could have easily taken the phrase “the many” as idiomatic for all.


Magnus: Not to put words or thoughts into your responses, but is the gist of your claim that many = all in Mark 14 based on fact that that is what Calvin said? If not, then please forgive me and I do not mean anything sinister by that, but looking at the context of Mark 14 and referencing the verses in Jeremiah I can not see how many here means all.

David: Sure but no. I am saying, here is a reputable source that didnt restrict the many to some of all. Owen and others convert the sense of this verse as stressing a negation, its about Christ only dying for some not all. Calvin says thats not the point at all, as the stress is on the one opposed to all others. And the many is all. One cant make simple semantic claims from rabbim.

Take care,
David

Turretinfan said...

Dear David,

The more often you shout "fallacy" without actually pointing out a fallacy, the less interested I become in actually engaging your comments.

To put it positively, consider explaining your position, explaining how it is different from mine, and explaining why your conclusion is to be preferred.

In the course of doing so, particularly the last step, you'll have a chance to employ the word "fallacy," perhaps even correctly if I have erred logically.

Or not ... I'm not the boss of you. But if you follow an approach like the one outlined above, you will look less like a man simmply shouting "fallacy."

-Turretinfan

David said...

You mean you dont get it?

You really dont?

you dont understand how you are extending the scope of the major premise?

These died for ones are sanctified

Becomes

All died for ones are sanctified

You are just extending the scope or extension of the subjects of the major premise.

David

Turretinfan said...

David,

Let's consider a hypothetical world in which I used a syllogistic argument (rather than the argument in the post above), and further let's suppose I adopted as my major premise the major premise you just supplied:

P1: These died for ones are sanctified

let's see if it is possible for that to lead to a conclusion:

C: All died for ones are sanctified

Remember, we are just dealing with hypotheticals.

Let's first convert the major premise into symbolic form, since we are concerned only about whether a fallacy has taken place.

These died for ones = Group A
are sanctified = Participate in Quality B

thus

P1(sym): Group A participates in Quality B

and

all died for ones = Group C

thus
C(sym): Group C participates in Quality B

Can we provide a P2 that would make C follow from P1 and P2?

Of course we can. That P2 is:

P2: Group A is Group C.

Would you still insist that there is a fallacy involved?

Remember, we are speaking hypothetically here.

-Turretinfan

David said...

Hey TF,

You would need a second intermediate argument that proves all the sanctified ones are all the died for ones. We are still waiting on that.

We are back to your earlier claim from a few weeks ago. I.e, you need to prove:

"P2: Group A is Group C."

Eg: All of Group C is in group A.

In terms of an argument I would imagine that would have to look something like this:

Only the sanctified ones are died for.

We have been waiting for that proof for weeks now.

That was your intention before. But your defense from the other day just assumes the same jump in each of its steps.

You cant just assume it, or beg the question, move in a circle, or make a generalization from a specified group to whole class.

David

Turretinfan said...

David,

I'll take that as admitting that in fact there is no "extension of the major premise" fallacy going on.

The new charge is that P2 has not been demonstrated. Nevertheless, an attempted demonstration has been set forth in the post above, and four points of argument have been raised in its support.

If you have some better explanation of the text, my recommendation to you would be to set it forth.

I contend (earnestly, even) that the better reading of the passage is that the group referenced is the group "all for whom Christ died" and not a group "some of those for whom Christ died."

Hopefully you get it know.

The question is whether you will offer a counter-exegsis or continue to make unwarranted assertions of fallacy.

-Turretinfan

natamllc said...

Wow,

yes, David, when I read your responses, I could only wonder what your point is?

Were you "setting" the record straight in this debate per Seth's request? Or, as I suspect, were you "setting" TF's record straight?

I humbly submit in it's entirety Ps. 34, from which Peter drew his dictation to Silvanus:

Ps. 34
Please note the two Hebrew words for all used in this Psalm:

כּול כּלo
kôl kôl
kole, kole
From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).


and

מנּי מנּי מן
min minnîy minnêy
min, min-nee', min-nay'
For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.

conjoined to:
כּול כּלo
kôl kôl
kole, kole

Psa 34:1 Of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, so that he drove him out, and he went away. I will bless the LORD at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth.
Psa 34:2 My soul makes its boast in the LORD; let the humble hear and be glad.
Psa 34:3 Oh, magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together!
Psa 34:4 I sought the LORD, and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears.
Psa 34:5 Those who look to him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed.
Psa 34:6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him and saved him out of all his troubles.
Psa 34:7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.
Psa 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!
Psa 34:9 Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack!
Psa 34:10 The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.
Psa 34:11 Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.
Psa 34:12 What man is there who desires life and loves many days, that he may see good?
Psa 34:13 Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit.
Psa 34:14 Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Psa 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry.
Psa 34:16 The face of the LORD is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
Psa 34:17 When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears and delivers them out of all their troubles.
Psa 34:18 The LORD is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.
Psa 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all.
Psa 34:20 He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.
Psa 34:21 Affliction will slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
Psa 34:22 The LORD redeems the life of his servants; none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.

Now surely, we are not talking about "all" time as in 24/7 hours of time are we? :)

Keep in mind that we have the benefit of being "in on the debate" between Job and his friends when I post this from the Book of Job in regard to this lastest volley of words in the current debate:::>

Job 19:1 Then Job answered and said:
Job 19:2 "How long will you torment me and break me in pieces with words?
Job 19:3 These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?
Job 19:4 And even if it be true that I have erred, my error remains with myself.
Job 19:5 If indeed you magnify yourselves against me and make my disgrace an argument against me,
Job 19:6 know then that God has put me in the wrong and closed his net about me.


I advise that we let our own selves be as Job and let our error remain with ourselves. Unless perhaps this has become a different sort of debate other than on unlimited/limited or limited atonement?

There, I said it, now I have elevated myself to my high position and feel better!

michael

Turretinfan said...

Michael,

Good to see you again!

-Turretinfan

David said...

Hey TF,

Do you remember weeks ago I kept asking you if you meant by 'these for whom the offering is made' is 'all for those the offering was made'?

You hedged and hedged but finally conceded that none for whom the offering was made would fail to be sanctified... or something like that.

The text at hand says these for whom the offering is made are sanctified.

Where is the evidence that for all whom the offering was made, are sanctified/perfected? None of the new proof-texts proved that at all, for they are all bound in the same problem you have with Heb 10:14.

The comers are died for.
The drawers-near are died for.
The obedient are died for.

We agree.

But we need something that proves all the died for are comers/drawers-near/obedient/sanctified

Can you prove that conversion?

We are still waiting.

Can you offer any?

David

Turretinfan said...

David,

The argument you seek is found already in the post above.

Just saying that "none of what you said proves anything" (or equivalent comments) are a waste of space.

Offer a competing explanation of the passage, or go home.

-Turretinfan

David said...

TF, you are kidding right?

Lets try and recap.

You wanted to argue that all for whom Christ died are sanctified and perfected. The point was to preclude the possibility that Christ died for any reprobate. The argument should have gone like this, No reprobate are sanctified/perfected, but yet all for whom Christ died for are sanctified/perfected, ergo, Christ did not die for the reprobate. That or something that was the intent. To that end you cited Heb 10:14.

We pointed out that the verse simply says, these sanctified ones are died for.

You need something like for all whom the offering is made are sanctified. I converted that to simple premises: all the died for are sanctified.

You realized that you needed to prove that all the sanctified ones are all the died for ones. You went away saying you would prove that.

Instead you came back with arguments that just repeated the same problem.

All the comers are died for. We agree. But that’s not: all the died for are comers.

All the drawers-near are died for. We agree. But that’s not: all the died for, draw near.

All the obedient are died for. We agree. But that is not all the died for are made obedient.

And the last one which clearly has believers in mind. Instead of responding to me reply you just insulted me. I really don’t care about the insults. What I care about is that you just repeated the very argument you claimed you were trying to prove.

You have still the problem of converting these for whom Christ died are sanctified/perfected into:

All died for are sanctified/perfected or only the sanctified/perfected are died for.

You just repeated the same fallacious move and assumption each time. I guess it was in the hope that adding 4 other leaky buckets you might be able to carry the argument into the house. :-) A Clarkian joke. :-)

But now you insist that I must offer an alternative exegesis, or else go home. The childishness aside, I have all along. I take the verse as this: by this one offering, those ones being sanctified (present passive participle) are perfected (perfect). I am only undecided on whether or not the force of the present passive participle is a timeless present (Morris et al) or a present continuous (everyone else). I do tho totally reject your unReformed Gillite interpretation borrowed from James White. Gill could only make that move because he had already bought into eternal justification as a hypercalvinist that he was.

But we are not making the positive argument from this verse: You are.

You need to get a grip on debating TF. I don’t know who you are. You refuse to disclose your name. I see what you say and make assumptions. I don’t know if you have any formal logic training. I ask you to go get some help, if you are not already. You get all burnt up and lash out at me. If you have had formal logic training, just tell me, but be Christian about it, not so snippy and nasty.

So we are still waiting for proof for your claim that all the died for are sanctified, or only the sanctified are died for. We have been waiting for weeks now.

Take care,
David

Turretinfan said...

"TF, you are kidding right?"

Nope. I'm not. If you offer no competing explanation of the passage, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Just shouting "you've proved nothing" only shows that you haven't got what it takes to be in the conversation in the first place.

-Turretinfan

Turretinfan said...

Let me say this calmly and clearly:

1. The question is whether "the sanctified" is identical to or a subset of the group "those for whom the sacrifice is offered."

2. I have presented an argument above demonstrating that the better reading of the text is the "identical" interpretation.

3. David still has not provided any competing exegesis/interpretation in support of a "subset" interpretation.

4. Therefore, as it stands, I am "winning" the debate, because I am the only one who has even attempted to address the issue.

5. David did make some comment about the grammatical construction of the verse, but - obviously - that does not address the question (see (1)).

6. Given that I have presented reasons for adopting the "identical" interpretation, it is either delusional, dishonest, or just plain dumb for David to keep saying "we've been waiting for weeks for your argument, and we're still waiting."

7. So, until David presents some reason to adopt a different interpretation than the "identical" interpretation, I reserve the right to simply point out that he's haranguing, not debating.

8. Of course, it would be nice if Seth (who actually is the one supposedly debating this with me) would answer the questions, the answers to which I've actually been waiting for, for several weeks, and am still waiting. But I recognize that he is busy, and I will continue to wait.

-Turretinfan

David said...

TF,

You really have this confused idea of burden of proof. If an argument entails a logical fallacy and therefore produces unsound and/or invalid conclusion, even if your opponent was a donkey, never ever ever can you simply claim victory because your opponent has not proposed an alternative positive exegesis.

Your opponent himself or herself may be completely undecided, but you still cant say “I win” by using fallacious logical steps.

TF:

1. The question is whether "the sanctified" is identical to or a subset of the group "those for whom the sacrifice is offered."

2. I have presented an argument above demonstrating that the better reading of the text is the "identical" interpretation.

David: And I demonstrated that each argument you used for each proof-text you used performed the same invalid reasoning.

For your claim that all the died for are all the sanctified ones, you need an “argument” and that would have to take the form of something like this: All died for ones are sanctified, or only the sanctified are died for. In all the proof-texts you supplied, neither the universal modifier is present, or the universal negation. You just repeated the same fallacious move you had previously made on Heb 10:14. Citing verses over and over which say these sanctified ones are died for, is pointless. If the aim was to establish some sort of inductive cumulative argument, its suffers from Clark’s leaky bucket analogy.

TF: 3. David still has not provided any competing exegesis/interpretation in support of a "subset" interpretation.

David: I don’t need to. I may have no positive opinion on this verse.


TF: 4. Therefore, as it stands, I am "winning" the debate, because I am the only one who has even attempted to address the issue.

David: Its all about winning isnt it? Has it ever been about people with you, TF? But no, you have not won anything.


TF: 5. David did make some comment about the grammatical construction of the verse, but - obviously - that does not address the question (see (1)).

David: David could have said nothing about the verse and still you have not established your case. Recall, you were the one who said you would prove that Christ either 1) only died for the elect, or 2) did not die for the non-elect. You have not proven either form.

TF: 6. Given that I have presented reasons for adopting the "identical" interpretation, it is either delusional, dishonest, or just plain dumb for David to keep saying "we've been waiting for weeks for your argument, and we're still waiting."

David: Its always great to treat your opponent like this. It will win you miles of award points.

TF: 7. So, until David presents some reason to adopt a different interpretation than the "identical" interpretation, I reserve the right to simply point out that he's haranguing, not debating.

David: Like I said, I don’t need to prove anything from this verse. All I need to do is show you how your logical steps are either unsound or invalid. And we have done that. You cant move from “These sanctified ones are died for,” to either 1) all died for ones are sanctified, or 2) only sanctified ones are died for. You can cry and cry all you like, but you have not established a sound or valid case.

TF:
8. Of course, it would be nice if Seth (who actually is the one supposedly debating this with me) would answer the questions, the answers to which I've actually been waiting for, for several weeks, and am still waiting. But I recognize that he is busy, and I will continue to wait.

David: Well I am sure Seth will in his own time.

But you really need to figure out what happens in a debate or discussion and who has the burden of proof. A fool may stand up in a crowd and shout an argument. Everyone knows he is a fool and so ignores him. Can the fool stand up, therefore, and declare that he has won? Of course not. Now I am not saying you are a fool, just offering a counter-factual example. So once again, I could be a mormon, a martian, a donkey, or simply agnostic, and in no way have you “won” your case.

As to my take on the verse, I should have added yesterday, I think the verse speaks to believers, living, alive, breathing, actually existing who being sanctified have been perfected by the one offering. That has been the basic line of thought for Evangelicals and Reformed. Its even Owen’s position that I can see. I am just not sure of the timeless present idea from Morris.

I have never tried to prove anything positive from this verse with regard to the premise forms: Christ did or did not die for the non-elect by way of an offering made. Because I have never ever adduced this verse to establish either the affirmation or negation of either premise forms, the insistence that I establish a positive argument for "my side" is just infantile and to use my favorite word: its junk.

To wrap up, you have not won, no one has won the wider argument in any of this. I do believe we have been right in showing you how you have moved illogically in all this.

However, given the repeated insults thrown at me from TF, I am bowing out of this. Its just ridiculous.

Take care,
David

Turretinfan said...

David wrote: "I am bowing out of this."

I think it would be great if David could do that, because I think he's adding a lot of heat and not much light to the debate. Somehow I doubt it will happen. I don't trust David to keep his word on this.

I'll very briefly comment on the tactics in David's fire-and-forget final post.

1. David has not actually established that any logical fallacies have taken place. He has certainly asserted it, but asserting it does not make it so. We dismantled his main contention of logical fallacy in the form of over-extending a major premise, and we could do the same with the others, if anyone felt he had any credibility.

2. David's argument that I would "have to" argue my point in a particular way is just wrong. I have established that the more consistent way of interpreting the verse in context is the "identity" interpretation. That's generally how exegesis works.

3. David's comment that he doesn't have to have a positive presentation just underscores the fact that he is a haranguer, not a debater. He's not here to try to provide the readers with a better understanding, but simply to throw a monkeywrench into the works: to tear down rather than to build up.

4. Finally, I feel its worth providing a quick exposee on what is going on here.

a) I say Christ will (or has) saved all those for whom he died.

b) Seth says he will negate that and establish his own resolution (we have not really come to Seth's positive presentation yet).

c) In this instance, I've given a verse that shows Christ dying for people and them being saved, and I've suggested that this group of people is the entire group of those for whom Christ died, although the verse does not explicitly say so.

d) One approach David has taken is to simply insist that I prove my case differently. Obviously, I'm free to prove my case as I see fit.

e) Another approach David has taken is to insist that a fallacy has taken place, but this relies on David's previous assertion that I must prove my case differently than I have.

But the fact remains, that

(i) if one is to reject the thesis that the group in question is identical with group "all for whom Christ died"; then

(ii) the group in question must be a subset;

(iii) but that position is contextually untenable, as established above (and as further evidenced by David's failure to positively defend such an alternative);

(iv) in contrast, of course, the identity relationship thesis is not just contextually tenable it is harmonious;

(v) that's why the Hebrews 10 debate is effectively over: because the alternative makes no sense in context.

It's almost exactly like the discussion about alleged amiguity that we had in an earlier thread in this debate. Recall how David repeatedly insisted that there was ambiguity in my statement, but refused to take the position that any meaning but the intended meaning was a reasonable sense of what I said? He's done the same thing here. There's only one reasonable sense of what the text says, but he's insisting that there is an ambiguity.

To play along with the bucket analogy, he claims that there is a leaky bucket, but he cannot point to water on the floor.

That's why it would be a good thing for David to keep his word and bow out of this debate, because the only way that I could be wrong on this, is if "them that are sanctified" is a subset of "all for whom Christ died." No amount of whining about "junk" and "insults" or (imaginary fallacies) will fix that process of elimination problem. And the "subset" interpretation is simply unworkable in context.

-Turretinfan

natamllc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seth McBee said...

Michael.
Like I said, I am not interested in any mudslinging of any kind.

I believe that David adds a lot to the discussion, as I believe that Turretinfan, Bnonn, Magnus, Tim and Bob do.

To all:

The finger pointing and name calling is childish and I am not going to let it continue.

So, if there is anything that even hints at it...I will delete.

natamllc said...

Seth,

hmmmmm,

You got me now. What was mud that I posted that you had to delete it?

Possibly you can email it to me and underscore what you felt offensive so that I can be enlightened to what you deem mud.

I would greatly appreciate it.

Honestly, I am quite surprised by your deletion.

I certainly want to know and am not afraid of any sort of reproof from a brother.

So, please, with all due respect, if you count me a brother and due respect that fact, then let me know so that I am no longer in the dark about it.

What did I say that was mud?

If it was deemed to be mud, don't you think it would be wise to point it out for my sake instead of delete it seeing I do not have a record of what I posted once I posted it?

Well, in any event, you obviously deemed what I posted and you deleted as offensive and mudslinging, so, now, please accept my apology?


Thanks
Michael

Seth McBee said...

Michael.

email me and I will email you back what I found to be unnecessary.

natamllc said...

Seth

did you receive the email I sent you?

Michael

Related Posts with Thumbnails