 |
| 
InterestedInquirer
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/4/2003 12:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | Next, you referred to John 1:7.
You said: Do you see how your use of that phrase in verse 13 would be entirely inconsistent with the theme of the passage, which is that God desires "all" to respond to Christ, and "every" person to see the "Light"?
This is a key text. I’m very glad you mentioned it. Go back to the verse and read it carefully. You will see that the evangelist is not referring to Jesus, but John the Baptist when he says, "that all men through him might believe." The Bible never speaks of us believing “through” Christ, but always in/into (eis) Christ or on (epi) Christ. I don’t think this point is really even disputed by modern scholars. Now, here is the significance of this, in the words of John Owen. I know this is long and the English is old, but please read it carefully. It is a good example of how many “All” passages in scripture have been abused by those supporting the general ransom. You will also note just how serious of a distortion of scripture Owen thought this to be. You might want to read this with a Bible in hand. I’ll underline a few points for ease of reading.
Owen says: “The next thing is from John i. 4, 7. Verse 4 is, that Christ was the " life of men;" which is most true, no life being to be had for any man but only in and through him. This not being at all to the question, the next words of verse 7 [are], " That all men through him might believe;" which words being thrust in, to piece-up a sense with another fraction of Scripture, seem to have some weight, as though Christ were sent that all men through him might believe. A goodly show! seeming no less to make for 'universal redemption than the Scripture cited by the devil, after he had cut off' part of it, did for our Saviour's casting himself from the pinnacle of the temple. But if you cast aside the sophistry of the old serpent, the expression of this place is not a little available to invalidate the thesis sought to be maintained by it. The words are, " There was a man sent &am God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe." Now, who do you think is there meant by " through him?" Is it Christ, think you, the light ? or John, the witness of the light? Certainly John, as almost all expositors do agree, except certain among the Papists, and Grotius,-- that Ishmael. So the Syriac interpreter, reading, " By his hand or ministry." So the word infers; for we are not said to believe " by Christ," or, as it should be here, " by the light;" but John xii. 36, " in the light," not by it. And Acts ix. 42, " believed in the Lord;" so also, Rom. ix. 33, " Every one that believeth on him." So in divers places, in him; but no mention of believing by him, which rather denotes the instrument of believing, as is the ministry of the word, than the object of faith, as Christ is. This being apparent, let us see what is affirmed of John, why he was sent " that all through him might believe." Now, this word all here hath all the qualifications which our author requireth for it, to be always esteemed a certain expression of a collective universality, that it is spoken of God, etc. And who, I pray you, were these all, that were intended to be brought to the faith by the ministry of John? 'Were they not only all those that lived throughout the world in his days, who preached (a few years) in Judea only, but also all those that were dead before his nativity, and that were born after his death, and shall be to the end of the world in any place under heaven? Let them that can believe it enjoy their persuasion, with this assurance that I will never be their rival; being fully persuaded that by all men here is meant only some of all sorts, to whom his word did come. So that the necessary sense of the word all here is wholly destructive to the proposition.”
I don’t think this passage could be treated much better. In my opinion, Owen clearly demonstrates how this "All" passage doesn't refer to "every single individual on the face of the earth." I was hoping someone would bring this up at one point or another, because I found this stuff really convincing w/ regard to Limited Atonement. I think some of the most powerful arguments for limited atonement are found in Owen’s clear expositions of some of the “All” passages, and “the whole world” passages. Would anyone disagree that if Limited Atonement could be proved, that the libertarian view would have to be abandoned? I’m interested in some feedback. I have to add, however, that I start classes tomorrow, which means I won’t have much time to write after today, so the sooner the better! Thanks guys.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 2/5/2003 2:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I’m just beginning to investigate what the Bible says about the atonement. It seems to me that Romans 6:12 et seq. teaches a universal atonement.
In verse 12, Paul begins . . . “Therefore, just as . . . “ This tells me that Paul intends to make a comparison. Before he gets to the comparison, however, Paul makes a contrast: “But the gift is not like the trespass. . . . Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.” (vv. 15, 16)
After mentioning the contrast between the trespass and the gift, Paul then draws a comparison in verses 18 and 19: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
It is interesting to take a look at both the contrasts and the comparisons Paul is making:
Contrasts:
1. The judgment “followed one sin” while the gift “followed many trespasses”
2. The judgment brought “condemnation” while the gift brought “justification”
Comparisons:
1. Just as ”sin”, “death”, “judgment” and “condemnation” entered the world through one man, so also “grace”, “justification”, “righteousness” entered the world through the one man, Jesus Christ.
2. Just as the result of one sin was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (v. 18). Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (v. 19).
In light of Paul’s clear intention to draw these comparisons, how can one say that “the many” refers to one thing when Paul is talking about sin, but “the many” means something else when Paul is talking about the gift?
So, it seems if one accepts Paul’s teaching that sin is universal, one must also accept Paul’s teaching that the atonement is likewise universal.
This fits Paul’s teaching that the gift is available to all (by grace) and is accepted by faith.
Right?
Edited by - JET on 02/05/2003 07:23:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|