In Arminianism/Non-Calvinism, why did Jesus die for hellbound people?

[Hammster]

That means some did not accept that Jesus paid the price for them so their sin is lack of acceptance of God's provision. You can equivocate as to whether that is sin or not, but what Jesus did in His sacrifice does NOT negate the law of sowing and reaping.

Okay. Does paying for their sin mean taking their punishment for sin?

 

[stan1953]

Okay. Does paying for their sin mean taking their punishment for sin?

Would Jesus have died otherwise?

 

[Hammster]

Heb 10:26-27 (NASB)
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

So receiving the knowledge of the truth equals being saved?

 

[Hammster]

Would Jesus have died otherwise?

I'm not sure if that was a yes or no. I'm trying to figure out your view.

 

[Skala]

Actually it means both. He died for sin ONCE for ALL, both sin and time.

As opposed to the OC yearly blood sacrifices for sin.

No it doesn't. It means "once for all time", not "once for all individuals" or "once for all sin".

Sorry, but that's what the underlying Greek means It can't mean "both" things as you have asserted.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No it doesn't. It means "once for all time", not "once for all individuals" or "once for all sin".

Sorry, but that's what the underlying Greek means It can't mean "both" things as you have asserted.

btw, since you here acknowledge that the verse refers to "all sin", without limiting it to ONLY certain individuals (the elect), why don't you accept that Christ died for all men, as Heb 2:9 clearly says?

 

[Jack Terrence]

btw, since you here acknowledge that the verse refers to "all sin", without limiting it to ONLY certain individuals (the elect), why don't you accept that Christ died for all men, as Heb 2:9 clearly says?

Thw word "men" is NOT in the text. It says that He died for "all" meaning ALL the house of Israel and Judah. The epistle was addressed to THEM.

You CANNOT prove your theory from Hebrews 2:9, and wishing that your theory has support in Hebrews doesn't make it so.

You must look elsewhere.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thw word "men" is NOT in the text.

I know that. I was quoting how many translations rendered it.

It says that He died for "all" meaning ALL the house of Israel and Judah. The epistle was addressed to THEM.

No, "all" means exactly what it says, all, meaning all of humankind.

Please review how 45 actual Greek experts rendered "pas":
EVERYONE - 25
Common English Bible
Contemporary English Version
Easy-To-Read Version
ESV
ESV Anglicized
Expanded Bible
God’s Word
Good News Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Lexham English Bible
Mounce Reverse Interlinear NT
Names of God Bible
NASB
New Century Version
NET
NIRV
NIV
NKJV
NLT
NRSV
NRSV anglicized
NRSV anglicized Catholic
NRSV Catholic
The Voice
World English Bible

EVERY ONE - 3
RSV
RSV Catholic
Young’s Literal Translation

EVERY MAN - 6
21st Century KJV
ASV
JB Phillips NT
Jubilee Bible 2000
KJV
Authorized KJV

EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON - 1
Amplified Bible

ALL HUMANITY - 1
Complete Jewish Bible

EVERY THING - 2
Darby Translation
Douay-Rheims1899 American Ed

ALL MEN - 2
1599 Geneva
Wycliffe

ON BEHALF OF ALL - 2
Knox Bible
Orthodox Jewish Bible

EVERY PERSON’S PLACE - 1
The Message

ALL OF US - 1
New Life Version

EVERY PERSON - 1
Worldwide English NT

Now, which of these 45 translations taught you that "all" means ONLY all the house of Israel?

You CANNOT prove your theory from Hebrews 2:9, and wishing that your theory has support in Hebrews doesn't make it so.

I don't use theory. I use what 45 actual Greek experts SAID. See above.

You must look elsewhere.

Seems that's what you must do to make the claim that you do.

I'll stick with what actual Greek language experts thought Heb 2:9 meant.

And I am looking for an answer as to which of these 45 translations taught you that "all" means ONLY "all the house of Israel". Or maybe some other translation that I've missed.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I'll stick with what actual Greek language experts thought Heb 2:9 meant.

And I will stick with what the inspired author meant. Verse 10 qualifies the word "all" as the "many sons of glory." And the epistle was written to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

The death of Christ in 2:9 is the new covenant in His death (chaps 8-9). Christ did NOT make a new covenant with every human being, for not every human being was under the old covenant.

Btw, I bet that many of the scholars who rendered verse 9 "every man" would still qualify that with verse 10. Don't assume that their rendering necessarily means what you say it means. At best Hebrews 2:9 says only that Christ died for every man of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. You certainly would not use Isaiah 53 as a "proof text" that Christ died for every single person. Or would you?

A consistent Dispensationalist will appeal only to certain writings of Paul for support of his universal atonement theory.

 

[stan1953]

And I will stick with what the inspired author meant. Verse 10 qualifies the word "all" as the "many sons of glory." And the epistle was written to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

It was written by Luke and directed towards Christian Hebrews.

The death of Christ in 2:9 is the new covenant in His death (chaps 8-9). Christ did NOT make a new covenant with every human being, for not every human being was under the old covenant.

The NEW covenant was for the Jew FIRST and then for the Gentile when Jesus called Paul. Gentile, is ANY other potential believer, regardless of faith or nationality.

Btw, I bet that many of the scholars who rendered verse 9 "every man" would still qualify that with verse 10. Don't assume that their rendering necessarily means what you say it means. At best Hebrews 2:9 says only that Christ died for every man of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. You certainly would not use Isaiah 53 as a "proof text" that Christ died for every single person. Or would you?

Actually it is properly rendered today as "everyone". See the following;
Hebrews 2:9 NASB;NIV;HCSB;NRSV;MOUNCE - Jesus Briefly Humbled - But we do see - Bible Gateway

A consistent Dispensationalist will appeal only to certain writings of Paul for support of his universal atonement theory.

Not understand the connotation of "universal" as it was applied at the time of Hebrew does not demonstrate understanding of the word, especially when it is used in the secondary meaning that Calvinists try to use it today.
"Universal" in the context of scripture means it is for "everyone", not that everyone will get saved. We know that has never happened, not will it.
Hell and the lake of fire is there for a reason.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And I will stick with what the inspired author meant.

Oh, I see. You know better than 45 actual Greek language experts who have translated what the author wrote? How does that work?

Are you a qualified Greek language translator? If not, how do you know what he meant? The 45 ARE qualified Greek translators, and from their translations, it is clear what they believe the author meant. Not even close to the Calvinist view.

Verse 10 qualifies the word "all" as the "many sons of glory."

I'll stick with 45 actual Greek language experts who KNOW what the author MEANT.

Btw, I bet that many of the scholars who rendered verse 9 "every man" would still qualify that with verse 10. Don't assume that their rendering necessarily means what you say it means. At best Hebrews 2:9 says only that Christ died for every man of the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Ok, let's go down that road. What if that is what the author meant? Do you really believe that Christ died ONLY for every Jew in history? You still have a huge problem, if that is what the author meant. Where do Gentiles fit in then?

Not only that, is "every man of the house of Israel and the house of Judah" saved and going to heaven? We know that isn't the case. So your problem just keeps growing and growing.

You certainly would not use Isaiah 53 as a "proof text" that Christ died for every single person. Or would you?

There is no rational reason to think otherwise.

A consistent Dispensationalist will appeal only to certain writings of Paul for support of his universal atonement theory.

I appeal to EVERYTHING Paul writes. I exclude nothing.

What specific passages from Paul tell us that Christ's death was only for the elect?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Oh, I see. You know better than 45 actual Greek language experts who have translated what the author wrote? How does that work?

You are assuming that all 45 scholars mean what you mean. Show us that each and every scholar thinks that "all" is unqualified.

Are you a qualified Greek language translator? If not, how do you know what he meant? The 45 ARE qualified Greek translators, and from their translations, it is clear what they believe the author meant. Not even close to the Calvinist view.

Show us that they all mean "everyone" is unqualified.

I'll stick with 45 actual Greek language experts who KNOW what the author MEANT.

How do you know that all of the Greek scholars mean "everyone" in an unqualified sense?

Do you really believe that Christ died ONLY for every Jew in history?

No! And I have not implied that. You read my posts carelessly as you read the scriptures.

You still have a huge problem, if that is what the author meant. Where do Gentiles fit in then?

I have no problem at all. Do you pay attention at all? Or, are you just ready to attack without listening? I have already said the Gentiles are included, but that their inclusion was EXCLUSIVE TO PAUL. Hebrews was written for Jews. Therefore, when you see the term "everyone" in the book of Hebrews it means Jews.

Just because Paul includes Gentiles does not mean that Hebrews is including them.

Not only that, is "every man of the house of Israel and the house of Judah" saved and going to heaven? We know that isn't the case. So your problem just keeps growing and growing.

I have ALREADY clarified myself on this. I have said that "everyone" in 2:9 is the "many sons of glory" in verse 10. I said that Christ's death in verse 9 is the new covenant in His death which was made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. Therefore, the many sons of glory would be the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That you act like I have not clarified myself shows how desperate you are.

There is no rational reason to think otherwise.

And the same goes for the book of Hebrews. You cannot prove that Christ died for every man from Hebrews any more than you can prove it from Isaiah.

I appeal to EVERYTHING Paul writes. I exclude nothing.

Then you are not a consistent Dipsensationalist.

What specific passages from Paul tell us that Christ's death was only for the elect?

I don't recall saying that Paul said that Christ died only for the elect. I said,

"A consistent Dispensationalist will appeal only to certain writings of Paul for support of his universal atonement theory."

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are assuming that all 45 scholars mean what you mean. Show us that each and every scholar thinks that "all" is unqualified.

Seems you didn't actually read how they translated "pas". Most of there translations couldn't possibly fit the way Calvinists try to force "pas" to mean.

Show us that they all mean "everyone" is unqualified.

Uh, sure. They, uh, didn't qualify the word. Which has been my point nearly forever. While Calvinists claim v.10 is the qualifier, it isn't. The qualifier occurs in the same sentence as the word "pas" in order to be a qualifier.

The best argument against the Calvinist defense of what "pas" means in Heb 2:9 came from one. The poster made the point that when one comes to v.9, the "natural" question is "all of what group"!!!!!!!

That statement ALONE demonstrates the bias of Calvinism. There is no natural question for what "all" means in v.9. Only for those who come to the verse with the PRECONCEIVED notion that Christ didn't die for everyone, would one even think to ask such a silly question.

Especially since "pas" was used 3 times in the preceeding verse in an exhaustive way. No reason at all to think the author was switching gears and using "all" in a limited way in v.9.

How do you know that all of the Greek scholars mean "everyone" in an unqualified sense?

Uh, they didn't , uh, use any qualifier with the word. I see a period after the word. No qualifier. v.10 doesn't qualify v.9.

Therefore, when you see the term "everyone" in the book of Hebrews it means Jews.

That is just preposterous!

I have ALREADY clarified myself on this. I have said that "everyone" in 2:9 is the "many sons of glory" in verse 10. I said that Christ's death in verse 9 is the new covenant in His death which was made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. Therefore, the many sons of glory would be the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That you act like I have not clarified myself shows how desperate you are.

I'm not desperate. That belongs to the Calvinist view of Heb 2:9 in trying to force the word to mean "less than all", or "all sons of glory", which is equally ridiculous. You still have a huge problem, in spite of your denial by claiming that "all" in v.9 only means the house of Israel and Judah. That can't possibly be right, since many Jews weren't saved, and the idea excludes Gentiles.

According to my study Bible, Acts was written before Hebrews, and ch 10 of Acts removes your argument totally.

And the same goes for the book of Hebrews. You cannot prove that Christ died for every man from Hebrews any more than you can prove it from Isaiah.

Proof is in the pudding. I've given what 45 actual Greek language experts thought the author meant. There's just NO WAY to read ALL (exhaustive) those translations and come up with the Calvinist idea.

Then you are not a consistent Dipsensationalist.

I'm a consistent Biblicist. Dispensationalism is a helpful tool.

I don't recall saying that Paul said that Christ died only for the elect. I said,

"A consistent Dispensationalist will appeal only to certain writings of Paul for support of his universal atonement theory."

The point being, that Paul NEVER said that Christ died only for the elect, and no other writer did either. That is what we call a CLUE.