"Changing" the words of scripture to make a point?

[earl40]

This would show how Jesus purchased or ransomed a particular people “from” or “out of” every tribe, language, people and nation and not that He purchased with His blood EVERY person from all tribes. Of course this is in reference to the L in TULIP.


#1 and with you blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.


#2 and with your money you purchased for Todd groceries from every Pantry Pride and Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly and Publix.


Any thoughts?

 

[toddpedlar]

This would show how Jesus purchased or ransomed a particular people “from” or “out of” every tribe, language, people and nation and not that He purchased with His blood EVERY person from all tribes. Of course this is in reference to the L in TULIP.


#1 and with you blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.


#2 and with your money you purchased for Todd groceries from every Pantry Pride and Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly and Publix.


Any thoughts?

Sure...


First thought: When are all those groceries going to show up at my house?

Second thought:

One must never alter the words of Scripture to serve a particular interpretive point of view.... and this, regardless of what point of view you're trying to espouse. So, in the case of the quoted verse - it absolutely says that a people are purchased OUT OF, or FROM AMONG every tribe, nation and tongue. What this shows is not, however, a slam-dunk for limited atonement, much as it is consistent with and even seems to demand it at some level... rather, it shows that people from every tribe, nation and tongue have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The hypothetical universalist will simply say that this only shows the effectual atonement, and not the intent of the atonement. It shows Christ being praised for having successfully ransomed people from the entire world, but according to the hypothetical universalist, Christ still died for all. So we have to go elsewhere to make our case (though this can be another arrow in the quiver, as it were).

 

[jogri17]

Get rid of the TULIP. It is not biblical nor Confessionally Reformed. It does not represent well the theology of Dort. We need to combat the anti-intellectual populism that is so popular in Conservative Churches and realize that theology is a spiritual as well as an academic discipline. I reccomend Dr. R. Scott Clark's book on this subject, and Dr. Richard Muller's article. On this question, they are excellent. Also, Ken Stewart's new book, while I would disagree with much, on this point, he proves how TULIP is a modern invention within Calvinism and originates outside the Reformed Faith.

 

[sevenzedek]

Get rid of the TULIP. It is not biblical nor Confessionally Reformed. It does not represent well the theology of Dort. We need to combat the anti-intellectual populism that is so popular in Conservative Churches and realize that theology is a spiritual as well as an academic discipline. I reccomend Dr. R. Scott Clark's book on this subject, and Dr. Richard Muller's article. On this question, they are excellent. Also, Ken Stewart's new book, while I would disagree with much, on this point, he proves how TULIP is a modern invention within Calvinism and originates outside the Reformed Faith.

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

Get rid of the TULIP. It is not biblical nor Confessionally Reformed. It does not represent well the theology of Dort. We need to combat the anti-intellectual populism that is so popular in Conservative Churches and realize that theology is a spiritual as well as an academic discipline. I reccomend Dr. R. Scott Clark's book on this subject, and Dr. Richard Muller's article. On this question, they are excellent. Also, Ken Stewart's new book, while I would disagree with much, on this point, he proves how TULIP is a modern invention within Calvinism and originates outside the Reformed Faith.

 

[earl40]

This would show how Jesus purchased or ransomed a particular people “from” or “out of” every tribe, language, people and nation and not that He purchased with His blood EVERY person from all tribes. Of course this is in reference to the L in TULIP.


#1 and with you blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.


#2 and with your money you purchased for Todd groceries from every Pantry Pride and Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly and Publix.


Any thoughts?

Sure...


First thought: When are all those groceries going to show up at my house?

Second thought:

One must never alter the words of Scripture to serve a particular interpretive point of view.... and this, regardless of what point of view you're trying to espouse. So, in the case of the quoted verse - it absolutely says that a people are purchased OUT OF, or FROM AMONG every tribe, nation and tongue. What this shows is not, however, a slam-dunk for limited atonement, much as it is consistent with and even seems to demand it at some level... rather, it shows that people from every tribe, nation and tongue have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The hypothetical universalist will simply say that this only shows the effectual atonement, and not the intent of the atonement. It shows Christ being praised for having successfully ransomed people from the entire world, but according to the hypothetical universalist, Christ still died for all. So we have to go elsewhere to make our case (though this can be another arrow in the quiver, as it were).

Concerning the seond thought I can see where the hypothetical universalist would indeed say it does not prove intent. But this verse does indeed show that Jesus purchased His own "out of" the mass of humanity. Also that He did not purchase the unelect for they were not chosen or ransomed out of that mass of which we were all part of. In other words, In my most humble opinion this proves via a slam dunk that the attonement was only for those who were purchased "from" or "out of" the humanity.

PS. I have used my example to show a person that the verse in question proves it does not mean what they they thought it meant with great success. Did it change their mind on Jesus died for ALL? Nope, but the person is happy with living with this contradition. Lead a horse to water and all.

Concerning the first thought...if it were buy one get one free I would give you half for sure.

---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 AM ----------

Get rid of the TULIP. It is not biblical nor Confessionally Reformed. It does not represent well the theology of Dort. We need to combat the anti-intellectual populism that is so popular in Conservative Churches and realize that theology is a spiritual as well as an academic discipline. I reccomend Dr. R. Scott Clark's book on this subject, and Dr. Richard Muller's article. On this question, they are excellent. Also, Ken Stewart's new book, while I would disagree with much, on this point, he proves how TULIP is a modern invention within Calvinism and originates outside the Reformed Faith.

Is it ok if I keep my belief that Jesus died for ONLY His sheep?

 

[toddpedlar]

One must never alter the words of Scripture to serve a particular interpretive point of view.... and this, regardless of what point of view you're trying to espouse. So, in the case of the quoted verse - it absolutely says that a people are purchased OUT OF, or FROM AMONG every tribe, nation and tongue. What this shows is not, however, a slam-dunk for limited atonement, much as it is consistent with and even seems to demand it at some level... rather, it shows that people from every tribe, nation and tongue have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The hypothetical universalist will simply say that this only shows the effectual atonement, and not the intent of the atonement. It shows Christ being praised for having successfully ransomed people from the entire world, but according to the hypothetical universalist, Christ still died for all. So we have to go elsewhere to make our case (though this can be another arrow in the quiver, as it were).

Concerning the seond thought I can see where the hypothetical universalist would indeed say it does not prove intent. But this verse does indeed show that Jesus purchased His own "out of" the mass of humanity. Also that He did not purchase the unelect for they were not chosen or ransomed out of that mass of which we were all part of. In other words, In my most humble opinion this proves via a slam dunk that the attonement was only for those who were purchased "from" or "out of" the humanity.

I don't see how it proves the intent at all... but it does prove that the purchase actually occurs for only some. If you argue long enough with Arminians you'll see that they believe that atonement was made for all, but that only some complete the sale. Now being one who has a Reformed view of soteriology, I read this verse as being clear in establishing the lack of universal extent of the atonement... but even as such, I don't see it as speaking to intent. (which is what you are arguing in your last sentence .... that the atonement was only FOR (or intended for) those elect. I just don't think this verse proves that at all.)

The Arminian will happily argue that the atonement was offered for, and intended for every human being - but that the intent of the purchase (through the atonement) was thwarted by man's free will, and thus the purchase (or ransom) was only effectual for some (those who, they argue, in their own freedom of choice, choose Christ). Their argument is that Christ died to pay the price for sin for all people, IF. The "IF" they include implies the need of a human will to complete the purchase. It's almost as though we are co-signers on the loan that Christ took out on the cross (and I"ve heard this analogy spoken). They'll look very happily at this verse and agree that only some are actually ransomed or purchased out of all humanity, because they believe the factor that determines the extent of the atonement is not the intent of the atonement.

All I'm saying is that you'll find plenty of clever Arminians who have no problem seeing through to the fact that this verse doesn't prove God's intent. Then you'll need to move on to other passages that are exceptionally clear on the intent of the atonement (like, for instance, John chapter 10).

 

[earl40]

One must never alter the words of Scripture to serve a particular interpretive point of view.... and this, regardless of what point of view you're trying to espouse. So, in the case of the quoted verse - it absolutely says that a people are purchased OUT OF, or FROM AMONG every tribe, nation and tongue. What this shows is not, however, a slam-dunk for limited atonement, much as it is consistent with and even seems to demand it at some level... rather, it shows that people from every tribe, nation and tongue have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The hypothetical universalist will simply say that this only shows the effectual atonement, and not the intent of the atonement. It shows Christ being praised for having successfully ransomed people from the entire world, but according to the hypothetical universalist, Christ still died for all. So we have to go elsewhere to make our case (though this can be another arrow in the quiver, as it were).

Concerning the seond thought I can see where the hypothetical universalist would indeed say it does not prove intent. But this verse does indeed show that Jesus purchased His own "out of" the mass of humanity. Also that He did not purchase the unelect for they were not chosen or ransomed out of that mass of which we were all part of. In other words, In my most humble opinion this proves via a slam dunk that the attonement was only for those who were purchased "from" or "out of" the humanity.

I don't see how it proves the intent at all... but it does prove that the purchase actually occurs for only some. If you argue long enough with Arminians you'll see that they believe that atonement was made for all, but that only some complete the sale. Now being one who has a Reformed view of soteriology, I read this verse as being clear in establishing the lack of universal extent of the atonement... but even as such, I don't see it as speaking to intent. (which is what you are arguing in your last sentence .... that the atonement was only FOR (or intended for) those elect. I just don't think this verse proves that at all.)

The Arminian will happily argue that the atonement was offered for, and intended for every human being - but that the intent of the purchase (through the atonement) was thwarted by man's free will, and thus the purchase (or ransom) was only effectual for some (those who, they argue, in their own freedom of choice, choose Christ). Their argument is that Christ died to pay the price for sin for all people, IF. The "IF" they include implies the need of a human will to complete the purchase. It's almost as though we are co-signers on the loan that Christ took out on the cross (and I"ve heard this analogy spoken). They'll look very happily at this verse and agree that only some are actually ransomed or purchased out of all humanity, because they believe the factor that determines the extent of the atonement is not the intent of the atonement.

All I'm saying is that you'll find plenty of clever Arminians who have no problem seeing through to the fact that this verse doesn't prove God's intent. Then you'll need to move on to other passages that are exceptionally clear on the intent of the atonement (like, for instance, John chapter 10).

Do you see the possibility that this verse goes beyong intent but does indeed say that He did ransom a people from the mass of humanity. I do. Of course I do not understand how anybody does not know intent always preceeds action. In other words, the action proves the intent.

 

[Herald]

Get rid of the TULIP. It is not biblical nor Confessionally Reformed. It does not represent well the theology of Dort. We need to combat the anti-intellectual populism that is so popular in Conservative Churches and realize that theology is a spiritual as well as an academic discipline. I reccomend Dr. R. Scott Clark's book on this subject, and Dr. Richard Muller's article. On this question, they are excellent. Also, Ken Stewart's new book, while I would disagree with much, on this point, he proves how TULIP is a modern invention within Calvinism and originates outside the Reformed Faith.

You don't get to make unsubstantiated accusations. Instead of linking to other authors I offer it up to you to lay out your case that TULIP is not biblical nor confessional Reformed. Do you have your own thoughts on this issue?

 

[toddpedlar]

Do you see the possibility that this verse goes beyong intent but does indeed say that He did ransom a people from the mass of humanity. I do. Of course I do not understand how anybody does not know intent always preceeds action. In other words, the action proves the intent.

I'm not sure I can parse what you've written here, as it seems grammatically flawed.

I'm not sure also that you understand the core of the different interpretations of this verse... you seem to want to interpret this as proving an atonement with intentional limitation on extent - but that does not take account of the massive difference between Calvinistic and Arminian interpretations of God's actions vs. man's will.... with a different set of presuppositions, your "In other words," doesn't fly. Let me try one more time to illustrate the problem here.

You say that action proves intent - but that's only because you have a certain presupposition about the idea that God, when making atonement (this verse doesn't say atonement, but says ransom or purchase) gets his man, as it were - that is, God accomplishes what he intended through this action, and since the action results in a purchase of an elect people, then the intent must be to purchase only the elect.

That idea works only because you have a particular presupposition. The Arminian operates under a completely different presupposition (i.e. the surpremacy of the will of man over God's intentions and desires) and therefore CANNOT read this verse as you do. So it's no mystery at all, in fact.

Look, if I say to you that I purchased a dozen apples out of a bin full of 144 apples, then you cannot say for certain that the action (of buying 12) implies the intent (to buy only 12). Perhaps my intent was to buy the whole gross, but I didn't have sufficient money. In such a case my INTENT was to buy a gross, or 144, but I only had sufficient resources to buy a dozen. My action did not correspond to my intent.

The Arminian believes that God went in to buy the 144, but because of the insufficiency of the finances, He only got 12. He acknowledges that God only actually purchased 12 out of the 144, but he also argues that he intended to buy all. The verse in question does not contradict the Arminian interpretation, because in fact the verse does NOT speak of intent, but of what actually was purchased.

OTHER verses would need to be adduced, showing that God in fact intended to buy only the dozen that he did (i.e. John 10 shows this). But on the basis of this one verse, the intent of God is ambiguous.

I hope this is clearer... I'm leaving it at this.

 

[davenporter]

Look, if I say to you that I purchased a dozen apples out of a bin full of 144 apples, then you cannot say for certain that the action (of buying 12) implies the intent (to buy only 12). Perhaps my intent was to buy the whole gross, but I didn't have sufficient money. In such a case my INTENT was to buy a gross, or 144, but I only had sufficient resources to buy a dozen. My action did not correspond to my intent.

The Arminian believes that God went in to buy the 144, but because of the insufficiency of the finances, He only got 12. He acknowledges that God only actually purchased 12 out of the 144, but he also argues that he intended to buy all. The verse in question does not contradict the Arminian interpretation, because in fact the verse does NOT speak of intent, but of what actually was purchased.

I think the Arminian would argue that the 144 eggs had the ability to come to life and 12 of the eggs chose for themselves to resurrect themselves and made their desire to go with Jesus known, so he took them. While Jesus paid for all of the eggs, he only actually took the ones whom he wanted with him. The rest told Jesus they didn't want anything to do with him. So maybe they would argue the purchase is complete for all 144, but consummated only for 12? I don't know...

In all seriousness, do Arminians deny the sufficiency of the atonement (i.e. the money of Christ)? The "Arminians" or non-Calvinists I know all believe that Christ died for all yet people have a libertarian free will to choose whether or not they will accept His payment.

 

[earl40]

I hear you Todd. I see we see things in that the intent of The Son of God is the difference in how we see the atonement vs. an Arminian does.

All I was attempting to show with the grocery sentence is that it does not say He purchased everybody which Arminians insist it says. That is a slam dunk In my most humble opinion.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

I hear you Todd. I see we see things in that the intent of The Son of God is the difference in how we see the atonement vs. an Arminian does.

All I was attempting to show with the grocery sentence is that it does not say He purchased everybody which Arminians insist it says. That is a slam dunk In my most humble opinion.