God is sovereign over human behaviour and decisions

[FreeGrace2]

You're the one who said He provided a solution. What is that if it's not reacting?

Having a plan for a known problem.

If you disagree, please proceed.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Now, please unpack this if you can to show me where I'm wrong.

To summarize, no one suffers for their sins.

Revelation 20:13-15 - And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

That is the exact opposite of what you are proposing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are you just going to ignore the quote from Aquinas, who actually AGREES with you in a rejection of monergism, and yet denies what you are concluding about 2:9?

Sure. Why not? I care not what Aquinas thinks of Heb 2:9 but care much more what actual Greek language scholars think of Heb 2:9. And I gave you their take. Why are YOU ignoring these scholars.

[QUTOE] The question is what παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου is describing contextually. To bring 9:12 over for no reason and read "eternal reception" in place of "tasted death for all men" is poor, poor exegesis.[/QUOTE]
Why did Jesus die for people? to atone for their sin. That means to satisfy the Father's justice. He bore sin in place of humans. That's all academic. I would hope every believer understands that. That's what 2:9 is about. iow, that's WHY Jesus tasted death for all. In 9:12, we know that He "obtained eternal redemption". Well, how did He do that? By DYING for people. Connect the dots. And I gave you what real Greek language scholars believed the writer meant in 2:9.

And besides, the fruition of your argument: if Christ is supposedly "securing eternal redemption" for every one who has ever lived, then it would lead to universalism... which of course is against the rules to espouse here.

That is a false conclusion because His death purchased eternal life for everyone and He holds that eternal life as a gift to give to believers. How does that sound like universalism?

Your assumptions are keeping you from even understanding the discussion. Please leave them outside when you come here.

Here it is again:
Christ died for everyone.
Christ's death secured/purchased/bought eternal life for everyone.
Christ promises eternal life as a gift to those who believe in Him for it.

Now, if that sounds like anything close to universalism, please show me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Revelation 20:13-15 - And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

That is the exact opposite of what you are proposing.

Well, it appears that you misread, and quite badly. v.15 tells us the reason people go to hell. Their names are NOT in the book of life. That means they don't possess eternal life. Which is obtained ONLY through faith in Christ.

The judgment here has nothing to do with WHY they are being thrown into the lake of fire, but rather, has everything to do with the "degree of toleration" IN the lake of Fire. Just research the times Jesus noted that "it will be MORE tolerable for some cities than others "in that day", meaning the day of judgment. So we KNOW that the lake of fire has degrees of toleration. It's all about either how "good" they were or how "bad" they were. And they are judged accordingly as to the degree of toleration while there.

 

[Hammster]

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. So, instead of "inevitable", how about "guaranteed"? Is that better?


Exactly. If you disagree, please proceed.

So His solution came after knowing that man would sin. He also knew that Satan would tempt Eve. His solution could have been to intervene. Yet it wasn't. Hence, He had a plan for sin.

 

[Hammster]

Having a plan for a known problem.

If you disagree, please proceed.

His plan could have been to stop the serpent. It wasn't, obviously. So obviously He had a plan for sin.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Sure. Why not? I care not what Aquinas thinks of Heb 2:9 but care much more what actual Greek language scholars think of Heb 2:9.

Yes Aquinas knew nothing of Greek and was a horrible scholar. It's fine to ignore him. I understand.

And I gave you their take. Why are YOU ignoring these scholars.

You didn't quote any scholars. You quoted the Bible in its many translations. This was never really an argument about translation, but an argument of exegesis. Show me scholars that support unlimited atonement and prove it from this text.

The greek text, παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου, says nothing specifically about "everyone". παντὸς, refers to all. Quite strictly, Christ for all tasted of death. The question is what all refers to. For some reason you seem to find it so very obvious that it refers to all men of all time. You must admit that παντὸς does not specify as there is no noun coupled. Instead, the contextual answer is that 2:10 shows the intention of His death; in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

The word "all" in english would be the counterpart to πᾶς, but it needs to be qualified. For example, if I were to order a hotdog, and was asked what I wanted on it and I said "all toppings", you wouldn't conclude that I wanted carmel, chocolate, sprinkles, etc. on it, even though they are also a type of topping. There is a scope to it. You can argue that the scope is implied, but this becomes hazy at times especially in Scripture. Even us monergists would admit that in certain cases. Etymologically speaking there is a scope of possibility, the question is what is probable. Hebrews 2:9 ought to be interpreted in light of the immediate context, which is shown in 2:10 and on to be an elect people.

Why did Jesus die for people? to atone for their sin.

He died for the elect, to atone for their sin.

John 10:14-15 - "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Doesn't sound like he is laying His life down for anyone else but the elect.

That means to satisfy the Father's justice. He bore sin in place of humans. That's all academic. I would hope every believer understands that. That's what 2:9 is about. iow, that's WHY Jesus tasted death for all. In 9:12, we know that He "obtained eternal redemption". Well, how did He do that? By DYING for people. Connect the dots. And I gave you what real Greek language scholars believed the writer meant in 2:9.

"Connect the dots". Isn't that what we are arguing about? The way you connect them is careless IMO.

That is a false conclusion because His death purchased eternal life for everyone and He holds that eternal life as a gift to give to believers. How does that sound like universalism?

Your assumptions are keeping you from even understanding the discussion. Please leave them outside when you come here.

Here it is again:
Christ died for everyone.
Christ's death secured/purchased/bought eternal life for everyone.
Christ promises eternal life as a gift to those who believe in Him for it.

Now, if that sounds like anything close to universalism, please show me.

Please, I understand the discussion quite well. Save it.

Why do you keep sidestepped the argument? Again I say, if Christ has effectively tasted death for all and it has been fully accomplished in their stead, then why do the reprobate suffer death for eternity? The punishment is being dealt twice and is an inequality in terms of justice.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, it appears that you misread, and quite badly. v.15 tells us the reason people go to hell. Their names are NOT in the book of life. That means they don't possess eternal life. Which is obtained ONLY through faith in Christ.

The judgment here has nothing to do with WHY they are being thrown into the lake of fire, but rather, has everything to do with the "degree of toleration" IN the lake of Fire. Just research the times Jesus noted that "it will be MORE tolerable for some cities than others "in that day", meaning the day of judgment. So we KNOW that the lake of fire has degrees of toleration. It's all about either how "good" they were or how "bad" they were. And they are judged accordingly as to the degree of toleration while there.

Explain this in light of your earlier statement. They are completely contradictory.

To summarize, no one suffers for their sins.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It's your contention that God provided the Cross as a solution to the sin issue that He knew would occur (because He's omniscient). Does that accurately reflect your position?

Exactly.

Not to step in between you guys, but how can God have knowledge of what a volitional being will do if it is apart from His will?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So His solution came after knowing that man would sin.

No, that would insinuate that God learns and plans from what He learns.

Do you understand what "simultaneous" means? His omniscience means that He simultaneously knows all things, and has always known all things. He doesn't think sequentially, as man has to. So God's solution was simultaneous with His knowledge of everything. Or, do you disagree. If so, please proceed.

[QUTOE] He also knew that Satan would tempt Eve. His solution could have been to intervene. Yet it wasn't. Hence, He had a plan for sin.[/QUOTE]
There you go again with your "what if..." routine. His plan was simultaneous with His knowledge of the appearance of sin. Unless you want to argue about that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

His plan could have been to stop the serpent. It wasn't, obviously. So obviously He had a plan for sin.

What is your point? Of course He had a plan. But you seem to want to force God to have "reacted" to the knowledge of sin by coming up with a plan.

No, God's knowledge is simultaneous. He has always known everything all at once. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

JF- You say "if....".


What If your assumption is wrong ? I doubt you do not know the mind of God so my I'm going with the Bible, never with your or any others calvie theory.

What assumption? What I said was theoretical, following along FreeGrace2's line of thinking, not mine.

"how can God have knowledge of what a volitional being will do if it is apart from His will?"

I am assuming that FreeGrace2 believes that sin and the fall were apart from God's will. As we established before based on Edward's quote, for God to will something is to decree it. Yet FreeGrace2 is fully against God decreeing the fall. If we are wishing to bestow freewill upon humanity and Adam in order to make sin a freewill choice, then it has to be apart from the will of God. And if apart from the will of God, then it must be outside of His scope of knowledge (impossible). Otherwise, the foreknowledge of God is no longer innate and instead gained from insight. This is a denial of omniscience.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

May I be blunt.
We do not and cannot know what God's 'plan' was/is simple because the Bible does not tell us.
2 B Cont'd

Rev 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

The Lamb who has been slain from the foundation of the world. The incarnation and death of Jesus Christ was decided upon before the fall of man. God's eternal decree.

 

[Hammster]

Troll is gone.

 

[Hammster]

What is your point? Of course He had a plan. But you seem to want to force God to have "reacted" to the knowledge of sin by coming up with a plan.

No, God's knowledge is simultaneous. He has always known everything all at once. Do you agree or disagree?

No, you do. I say his plan was the cross. He needed sin to occur, though.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes Aquinas knew nothing of Greek and was a horrible scholar. It's fine to ignore him. I understand.

Thank you for understanding. Did Aquinas know American English? That's my point. I look for scholars who speak my language and know the Koine Greek as well. And their translation demonstrates what they understood the writer to be saying. Which is, ahem, the point of translation.

You didn't quote any scholars. You quoted the Bible in its many translations.

So you must think that all those translations didn't come from any scholars, but just a bunch of guys who weren't scholars? Are you kidding? That was a pathetic response to 45 English translations. You are just dodging the FACTS that refute your theology, is all.

This was never really an argument about translation, but an argument of exegesis. Show me scholars that support unlimited atonement and prove it from this text.

Here's the deal. I have no idea what the theology was of those 45 translations. But one thing is perfectly clear: they ALL clearly understood Heb 2:9 to say that Christ died for EVERYONE, not "just the elect" as Calvinism claims.

The greek text, παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου, says nothing specifically about "everyone". παντὸς, refers to all.

Your argument is not with me, but with 45 translations, produced from many more than 45 real Greek language experts (scholars) who know WAY more than you or me. Go sic 'em.

Quite strictly, Christ for all tasted of death. The question is what all refers to.

Thanks for saying this. You just proved your BIAS. Why do you come to this verse with even thinking what "all" can mean. It is a stand alone statement. But not to one who does NOT believe that Christ died for all. Simple as that. You bring your bias to the text, so you HAVE to ask that question; "all of what group". Proving that you believe that He died ONLY for a group; the question being, which group? Because you bring your bias to the text that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

For some reason you seem to find it so very obvious that it refers to all men of all time.

It IS obvious. Just not to one who brings a nonBiblical bias to the text. And to answer the "some reason", just review the 45 translations which were made by real genuine actual Greek language scholars who know WAY more than you or I. So your beef is with those language experts, not me. I just believe what they believed about what 2:9 says. While you don't, it appears. tsk, tsk.

You must admit that παντὸς does not specify as there is no noun coupled.

Again, take up your argument with real Greek language experts.

Instead, the contextual answer is that 2:10 shows the intention of His death; in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Yes, He did intend to bring many sons to glory. But you just can't link the "all" in v.9 to the "many sons" in v.10.

Do you really want to argue that "Jesus tasted death for ALL of the many sons"? That even sounds ridiculous. But of course that must be your argument, in order to preserve your theology at all costs.

The word "all" in english would be the counterpart to πᾶς, but it needs to be qualified.

Only WHEN someone comes to the text with that preconceived BIAS that He didn't really die for everyone, but just the elect. That's the only reason YOU need it to be qualified.

Everyone knows that Christ die for people's sins. So the statement DOES qualify who He died for; ALL, or EVERYONE, or EVERY SINGLE PERSON, or ALL OF HUMANITY. You know, what all those 45 Greek language experts SAID.

For example, if I were to order a hotdog, and was asked what I wanted on it and I said "all toppings", you wouldn't conclude that I wanted carmel, chocolate, sprinkles, etc. on it, even though they are also a type of topping. There is a scope to it. You can argue that the scope is implied, but this becomes hazy at times especially in Scripture.[/QUOTE]
Great point! So what in context led up to v.9? How about v.5-8? In v.8 the writer used "pass" 3 times. So let's look at the context for v.9.

5For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking. 6But one has testified somewhere, saying,
“What is man, that You remember him?
Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him?
7 “You have made him for a little while lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And have appointed him over the works of Your hands;
8 You have put ALL THINGS in subjection under his feet.”
For in subjecting ALL THINGS to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see ALL THINGS subjected to him.

The subject is that the earth was placed in subjection to mankind. I've highlighted the 3 times the writer used "pas" in v.8, translation "all things". What is the scope of "pas" in v.8? The writer was quoting from Psa 8:4-6

4 What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
5 Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
6 You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,

And, just for a bit more contextual clarity, let's also include the next 2 verses in Psa 8 to understand what v.4-6 really meant:

7 All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.

OK, do you see any evidence that the writer of Hebrews or Psa meant "all" in less than an "everything" way? How many sheep/oxen? All. Pretty clear.

That is the meaning the writer of Hebrews carried into v.9 when He made the comparison between ALL the earth in subjection to mankind, just as Christ dying for ALL humanity.

Even us monergists would admit that in certain cases. Etymologically speaking there is a scope of possibility

Contextually, NO, there isn't a scope of "possibility". Your problem is that you have come to 2:9 with your Calvinistic BIAS that Christ DIDN'T die for everyone.

the question is what is probable.

There is no question of "probable". You say that only because you came to 2:9 with a Calvinistic bias against Christ really dying for everyone.

Hebrews 2:9 ought to be interpreted in light of the immediate context, which is shown in 2:10 and on to be an elect people.

Nope. The context for 2:9 is v5-8, along with Psa 8:4-8.

[QUTOE]He died for the elect, to atone for their sin.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the bias you carry with you to v.9. Which is why you MUST reject the clear and simple statement that He died for everyone.

When you hear (read) the statement that "Christ died for everyone", do you really question "everyone of whom", or "everyone of which group"? If you do, you are showing your significant bias that He didn't die for everyone.

John 10:14-15 - "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

OK, so what? Did He say that He lay down His life for HIS[;U] sheep? No. It clearly SAYS "the sheep". And He further noted in Jn 10 that those unbelievers weren't HIS sheep. Not that they weren't sheep.

So, the statement that Jesus lay down His life for the sheep, in context, means that He lays down His life for humanity.

Doesn't sound like he is laying His life down for anyone else but the elect.

See comments above.

Why do you keep sidestepped the argument? Again I say, if Christ has effectively tasted death for all and it has been fully accomplished in their stead, then why do the reprobate suffer death for eternity?

I'll say it AGAIN for you. They suffer death because they were never born again and given eternal life, which comes only through faith in Christ.

Christ's payment for the "sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:2) also purchased eternal life for everyone. But it is a gift given ONLY to those who believe.

Rev 20:15 says that those who's names are not in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. They go there because they didn't receive the gift through faith.

[QUTOE] The punishment is being dealt twice and is an inequality in terms of justice.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not. Christ paid the penalty of sin. The hell dwellers are there because they rejected the free gift of eternal life. And they will have an eternity to think about that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Explain this in light of your earlier statement. They are completely contradictory.

Uh, "earlier statement" as in, what, 1 or 2 pages ago? Please just specify any so-called contradiction you think I made.

How in the world would I know what you are referring to? I would never do that to you. If I see a contradiction, I will spell it out clearly for you to answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not to step in between you guys, but how can God have knowledge of what a volitional being will do if it is apart from His will?

Your question infers that you don't understand omniscience. And by that inference, God ain't all that, in the omniscience department.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I am assuming that FreeGrace2 believes that sin and the fall were apart from God's will. As we established before based on Edward's quote, for God to will something is to decree it. Yet FreeGrace2 is fully against God decreeing the fall.

I fully believe that God allowed/permitted the Fall, and fully knew it would occur simultaneously with everything else He knows fully.

I don't trust your use of "decreed". It can mean to permit or it can mean to cause to occur. Your definitions seem mighty slippery at times.

If we are wishing to bestow freewill upon humanity and Adam in order to make sin a freewill choice, then it has to be apart from the will of God.

First we don't wish to bestow anything. God already DID bestow mankind with free choice. Second, sin IS apart from God's will, but He permits it to occur to prove a point, or whatever.

And if apart from the will of God, then it must be outside of His scope of knowledge (impossible).

Yep. Just as I thought. You have hamstrung the omniscience of God by your statement. You, like many Calvinists, think that God can only know what He determines will occur.

I believe that God perfectly knows everything that His free creatures will do, even those things that are against His will.

Otherwise, the foreknowledge of God is no longer innate and instead gained from insight. This is a denial of omniscience.

Actually, those who think that "foreknowledge" is "looking ahead to see" what will occur, indicates that God learns by looking ahead.

Clearly, there is a problem with words and definitions. No doubt we are using the same words but using different meanings. Which is why threads split.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, you do.

What an "answer" for my comment:

God's knowledge is simultaneous. He has always known everything all at once. Do you agree or disagree?

I asked if you agreed or disagreed with my statement, and you say that "I do"? Really. Of course I agree with my statement. My question was whether or not you agreed or not. Well, do you?

I say his plan was the cross. He needed sin to occur, though.

So, you think He "needed" sin to occur. That suggests that He planned the cross for no apparent reason, and then realized He "needed" sin. Sort of a "oops, I need a reason for the cross". Why would He plan the cross IF sin weren't the REASON for it? Didn't Christ go to the cross because of sin?

The REASON He planned for the cross was BECAUSE He knew sin would occur. If you disagree, please show me clearly HOW and WHY I'm wrong.