What Does A Four-Pointer Do With Heb 9:27,28?
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
'Many' means 'all' in this formulation?
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Careful, brother. That could result in serious brain injury.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What, coffee grounds, 6522, xasdsah!? <%^&^#
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
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."
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Presbyterian Deacon
Puritan Board Graduate
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:
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!
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:
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Junior
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;
, or this one;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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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...
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
I appreciate where you are coming from...
To enlarge on my former thought:
In Heb. 9:28 we are told Christ "bear the sins of many." Now it requires a systemic framework in order to understand the significance of this "bearing," such that it is impossible to ignore or contradict that framework in coming to an understanding of the text. It's obvious that He must have become chargeable with those sins. According to what arrangement is this possible? in what capacity was He acting in order to accommodate this? and with respect to whom were the sins borne away? By the time we answer questions like these we have called upon our theological framework to such a degree that it would not be honest to arrive at an understanding of the text and claim that our theological system has had nothing to do with it.
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.
Indeed, what the theology of Hebrews, in many places, focuses on is the perfection of the sacrifice for Christ for the benefit of those He offered it for. The very text of Hebrews itself forms an impenetrable unit itself against any notion that Christ could have offered Himself for the sins of a person and for that sacrifice to have been rejected:
- Status
