Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor  Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden Yes, when I was a four pointer, I could rationalize the "many" in Hebrews 9 the same way I now do the "all" in certain other passages. We "all" acknowledge that "all" does not "always" mean "all." Why would "many" pose any greater problem? | I understand, but the 'many' in vs. 28 is clearly in contrast to the implied 'all' men die and go to judgment in vs. 27.
If the passage said, "And as it is appointed unto many men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." then I would have no problem seeing both 'manys' refering to all men. But why would the author of Hebrews use the word 'many' in verse 28 and not in verse 27?
I did read in JFB that (in their view) the 'many' in verse 28 is in contrast to 'few' not 'all'. But it did not explain their exegesis. The word 'few' is not present or implied anywhere in the context.
I have never been a UA person and I am desiring to understand their point of view. I guess it is a matter or 'rationalization'. | At the risk of being branded a heretic, having to run into hiding under the assumed name "Junker George," and having my posting privilege on the Puritan Board stricken for life... I am what might be called a 4-pointer.
My systematic theology professor at Liberty University first introduced me to Amyraldianism and it stuck. I had previously been a devout Arminian - although I would not have been able to articulate any of the doctrines at the time. I came to faith in the Assemblies of God and was steeped in "back-sliding" and "on fire for God" language of the Charismatic movement.
I hold to what might be deemed as a "hypothetical" universal atonement. I would say that the death of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of all but it is only efficient for those who come to faith.
Oh, I am also a dispensationalists - albeit a rather progressive dispensationalist. I do not believe in a two-fold atonement. All who are saved are saved in Christ.
Now, to answer KMK's question; I would say first that I am not sure it is the most appropriate manner of exegesis to assume that the author's main point is to distinguish between universal or limited atonement. Was the author looking 2000 years into the future and imagining us contemplating these things?
The Holy Spirit has inspired the text and while every word in inerrant, I still think that we should focus on what the text focuses upon - not what our theological systems demand for consistency sake. 
And I echo a previous posters sentiments that it is not any less inconsistent for me to view the "many" as, in a sense, hyperbolic to all just as you likely view the all in John 3:16. |
Appreciate your candor. This is not a matter of being reactionary but of our basic standards here. Amyraldianism is not a position accepted on the board.
Posting privileges are contingent upon having a Confessional status that aligns itself to the board. We must have missed that you chose "Other" in your Confession and did not press further from your bio to see where you departed from Reformed orthodoxy prior to approving your application. For that,
I apologize if I was sloppy in approving your membership here.
I do appreciate your honesty and, indeed, you have lost your posting privileges.
This is not a declaration of excommunication or binding/loosing of who will/won't be saved or is a heretic. We do, however, have very specific confessional requirements and fuzziness on the nature of the Atonement is not something we abide for membership here.
Blessings!
Rich