What Does A Four-Pointer Do With Heb 9:27,28?

KMK · #1 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 02:17 PM

Those of you who are or were once Unlimited Atonement people, what do/did you do with this...

Quote:

Hbr 9:27,28 And as it is appointed unto 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.

All men die and go to judgment, except the many for whom Christ was offered to bear their sins.

Poimen · #2 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 02:24 PM

So Christ bore the sins of many (men) but only those who look for him shall find full salvation.

KMK · #3 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

So Christ bore the sins of many (men) but only those who look for him shall find full salvation.

'Many' means 'all' in this formulation?

Poimen · #4 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:22 PM

I don't know; I'm trying to think like a four-pointer... but it's not working out very well.

Brad · #5 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

I don't know; I'm trying to think like a four-pointer... but it's not working out very well.

Careful, brother. That could result in serious brain injury.

DMcFadden · #6 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:24 PM

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?

Poimen · #7 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

I don't know; I'm trying to think like a four-pointer... but it's not working out very well.

Careful, brother. That could result in serious brain injury.

What, coffee grounds, 6522, xasdsah!? <%^&^#

KMK · #8 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:36 PM

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'.

Calvin'scuz · #9 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:52 PM

I saw a quote from Loraine Boettner once. He said that all Christians believe in limited atonement; the Calvinist believes the atonement was limited quantitatively, and the Arminian believes it was limited qualitatively.

DMcFadden · #10 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 05:59 PM

Or . . . the Calvinist believes it was limited by God's gracious and merciful choice and the Arminian believes it was limited by human wisdom or foolishness.

elnwood · #11 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 07:15 PM

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'.

I think one could also see that the "many" is contrasted with the one man Christ Jesus who offered himself "once." Romans 5:16-19 shows this emphasis more clearly:

"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

As Calvinists, we are used to interpreting "many" as in contrast to "all," but I think the regular use of "many" is to contrast it to "few," or "one."

Ivan · #12 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 08:25 PM

Who does a four-pointer do when he reads Hebrews 9:27-28? He becomes a five-pointer.

Amazing Grace · #13 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Those of you who are or were once Unlimited Atonement people, what do/did you do with this...

Quote:

Hbr 9:27,28 And as it is appointed unto 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.

All men die and go to judgment, except the many for whom Christ was offered to bear their sins.

They leave it out of their bible...

Presbyterian Deacon · #14 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 09:31 PM

Okay.

The following is a quote from a book called The Death Christ Died by Robert P. Lightner, Th.D Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary. Lightner writes from the "unlimited redemptionist" perspective.

This is what he wrote:

Quote:

These selected passages serve to illustrate the fact that the Bible does speak of the atonement in relation to specific individuals and groups. According to these and and other passages, Christ came to redeem His own, to provide a ransom for many, to die for the sheep, and to give Himself for the Church. And the unlimited redemptionist has absolutely no problem reconciling all such references with his view. It should be understood, however, that none of the passages which speak of Christ's death for specific groups or individuals can be used to exclude others. This is true since they only tell us of a certain group for whom Christ did die, and they do not tell us that He did not die for others. In other words, nowhere in Scripture does it ever say Christ did not die for all men.

So, in other words, they don't do anything with it! They say it means what it says, but then go on to say that it does not exclude or contradict other places which use the term "all."

Sounds like antics with semantics to me!

PilgrimPastor · #15 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 01:39 AM

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.

Iconoclast · #16 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Those of you who are or were once Unlimited Atonement people, what do/did you do with this...

Quote:

Hbr 9:27,28 And as it is appointed unto 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.

All men die and go to judgment, except the many for whom Christ was offered to bear their sins.

Kmk,
Good post, tough question. When a good verse like this is offered up, you have to go to another translation to completely lose the the original meaning
for example , here are two such translations that almost completely obscure the passage;

Quote:

He gave Himself once for all time. He gave Himself to destroy sin. 27 It is in the plan that all men die once. After that, they will stand before God and be judged. 28 It is the same with Christ. He gave Himself once to take away the sins of many. When He comes the second time, He will not need to give Himself again for sin. He will save all those who are waiting for Him.

, or this one;

Quote:

27 And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, 28 so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.

armourbearer · #17 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

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.

Your alternative supposes that we can focus without the use of a lens. Our theological system is the lens through which we focus on the text. It's all blurry otherwise. But then, Amyraldism depends on bluriness, so I can see why we are being urged to focus on the text without our theological lens.

PilgrimPastor · #18 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilgrimPastor

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.

Your alternative supposes that we can focus without the use of a lens. Our theological system is the lens through which we focus on the text. It's all blurry otherwise. But then, Amyraldism depends on bluriness, so I can see why we are being urged to focus on the text without our theological lens.

Ouch... I have been flirting with the 5 point position for some time, that is the main reason I started interacting on this board. I appreciate where you are coming from...

Semper Fidelis · #19 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 02:57 AM

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