So I’ll introduce a new category today called “Calvinist Questions.” I often hear things about calvinists and am told what they believe. Then some times I stumble across someone claiming to be a calvinist and there’s too many discrepancies between what I hear and what I read (and other calvinists I may read)! So, if I have any calvinist readers, I would like it if you would comment on these posts at least and tell me what’s up with my questions. I’m much obliged to you. 🙂
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6
I heard today that calvinists have a hard time with Isaiah 53:6 because they believe in “limited atonement” and this verse “obviously” shows that the iniquities of all were laid upon Christ.
How does a calvinist interpret Isaiah 53:6?
You Think Too Much! 
EW I think I could like this/ Why not do a full series on it?
Nope, I have no problem with that verse.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
First, we must establish who the sheep are in this passage. Context clearly tells us that this is referring to Israel. Israel was Chosen(elected) by God to be His people. Just as Christians are today. Now, let’s dig deeper. Whenever the Bible refers to sheep, it’s always refering to the people of God(except when it’s actually talking about real sheep, ie, David watching his father’s flocks).
I Peter 2:25 says: For ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Christ is only a shepherd of those who are in His flock.
Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Peter here is NOT commanded to feed the unregenerate, but to feed the regenerate. The regenerate are Christ’s sheep. The lost who will not be saved are goats.
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(Mat 25:32-33)
Now, let’s take a look at John 10. John 10 very clearly illustrates that Christ is a shepherd of His sheep.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
(Joh 10:14-16)
Now take a look at the above passage. Christ says that He knows who His sheep are. He also states that He lays down His life for the Sheep. But we don’t find this extended to those NOT of Christ’s flock. He states that He has other sheep not of His first fold(Israel) but He will bring in His other sheep(Gentiles) so that Israel(the chosen nation) and the chosen Gentiles will be made into one fold.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Now, look at the above. Jesus is the “great shepherd of the sheep” made to be so through the Blood of the Covenant.
Sheep in Scripture are those who belong to Christ. Goats do not belong to Christ. There will be two categories when Christ returns to reign, the sheep and the goats(Matthew 25:32-33). The sheep are those who Christ laid down his life for(John 10:15) and were made so through the Blood of the Covenant(Hebrews 13:20). Sheep does not refer to lost people, or people who will not be saved. Sheep always refers to the people of God. We become *like* sheep when we sin, or when we go astray from God. Or, when bad shepherds(spiritual leaders) lead sheep down a wrong path.
Also, I just wanted to commend you for opening your blog to comments from those outside of your personal position in order to gain a greater understanding of what they believe. Calvinism, with me anyway, is not a big issue. I don’t make it an issue of fellowship or necessarily of where I go to church. However, I do enjoy discussing the topic with those wanting to know more about it, whether or not they agree with my position. Kudos to you. It’s not often an IFB(other than myself of course :p ) will do so.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0694.htm
Here is one of two sermons Charles Spurgeon preached using this very text.
Here is what John Gill had to say about this text.
Isaiah 53:6
Ver. 6. All we like sheep have gone astray,…. Here the prophet represents all the elect of God, whether Jews or Gentiles; whom he compares to “sheep”, not for their good qualities, but for their foolishness and stupidity; and particularly for their being subject to go astray from the shepherd, and the fold, and from their good pastures, and who never return of themselves, until they are looked up, and brought back by the shepherd, or owner of them; so the people of God, in a state of nature, are like the silly sheep, they go astray from God, are alienated from the life of him, deviate from the rule of his word, err from the right way, and go into crooked paths, which lead to destruction; and never return of themselves, of their own will, and by their own power, until they are returned, by powerful and efficacious grace, unto the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls; see 1Pe 2:25 where the apostle has a manifest respect to this passage:
we have turned everyone to his own way; and that is an evil one, a dark and slippery one, a crooked one, the end of it is ruin; yet this is a way of a man’s own choosing and approving, and in which he delights; and it may not only intend the way of wickedness in general, common to all men in a state of nature, but a particular way of sinning, peculiar to each; some are addicted to one sin, and some to another, and have their own way of committing the same sin; men turn their faces from God, and their backs upon him, and look to their own way, and set their faces towards it, and their hearts on it; and which seems right and pleasing to them, yet the end of it are the ways of death; and so bent are men on these ways, though so destructive, that nothing but omnipotent grace can turn them out of them, and to the Lord; and which is done in consequence of what follows:
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all; that is, God the Father, against whom we have sinned, from whom we have turned, and whose justice must be satisfied; he has laid on Christ, his own Son, the sins of all his elect ones; which are as it were collected together, and made one bundle and burden of, and therefore expressed in the singular number, “iniquity”, and laid on Christ, and were bore by him, even all the sins of all God’s elect; a heavy burden this! which none but the mighty God could bear; this was typified by laying of hands, and laying of sins upon the sacrifice, and putting the iniquities of Israel upon the head of the scapegoat, by whom they were bore, and carried away. The words may be rendered, “he made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all” {r}; the elect of God, as they live in every part of the world, their sins are represented as coming from all quarters, east, west, north, and south; and as meeting in Christ, as they did, when he suffered as their representative on the cross: or “he made to rush, or fall upon him the iniquity of us all” {s}; our sins, like a large and mighty army, beset him around, and fell upon him in a hostile manner, and were the cause of his death; by which means the law and justice of God had full satisfaction, and our recovery from ruin and destruction is procured, which otherwise must have been the consequence of turning to our own ways; so the ancient Jews understood this of the Messiah. R. Cahana {t} on these words, “binding his ass’s colt to the choice vine”, Ge 49:11 says,
“as the ass bears burdens, and the garments of travellers, so the King Messiah will bear upon him the sins of the whole world; as it is said, “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”,” Isa 53:6.
{r} wnlk Nwe ta wb eygph “fecit occarrere in eum iniquitatem omnium hostrum”, Montanus; “occurrere fecit ei, vel irruere fecit in ilium”, Vatablus. {s} “Incurrere fecit in eum”, Cocceius, Vitringa, Forerius; “irruere fecit in ilium”, Vatablus; sic Syr. “fecit ut incurreret iniquitas”, Piscator. {t} Apud Galatin. de Cathol. Ver. I. 10. c. 6. p. 663, and Siphre in ib. l. 8. c. 20. p. 599.
from http://www.freegrace.net/gill/
I suppose I could list more but your question is too vague to be serious.
Will Rogers, is that who you really are? or is that a pen-name? Either way is fine with me. I just thought that I’ve heard of you before 🙂
Biblethumper, maybe I’m too stupid to ask a serious question, but I thought it was serious. Either way, now we know what Will Rogers, Spurgeon, and Gill think. What does the Biblethumper think?
Thanks for everyone’s contribution so far,
LOL. It’s my real name. Not my full name, but it is my real name. Everybody calls me Will, so using “Will Rogers” when introducing myself just comes natural.
“Will Rogers, is that who you really are? or is that a pen-name? Either way is fine with me. I just thought that I’ve heard of you before
Biblethumper, maybe I’m too stupid to ask a serious question, but I thought it was serious. Either way, now we know what Will Rogers, Spurgeon, and Gill think. What does the Biblethumper think?
Thanks for everyone’s contribution so far,”
I don;t think you are stupid. Just often I read people who have “heard” this person say this is a problem for a certain belief system to believe when it should be obvious to anyone that it really isn’t.
In order to understand the text a question needs to be asked. Who is the “we” in the text?
My question would be whose inquity was laid on Jesus?
(are ‘non-Calvinists’ welcomed to comment as well?)
Yes, ‘non-calvinists’ are encouraged to comment also. Maybe this feature will be clear up all confusion that has been in theological discussions for the last 400 years!
🙂
Hi Hardecker. Great question. But it all goes back to the original point I made, who are the sheep? Isaiah pointed out that “all we like sheep have gone astray.” If we follow out closely the word “sheep” when applied to people in Scripture, we find that sheep always refers to the people of the Lord. Now look, Isaiah informs the nation of Israel that they had gone astray. Then he tells the nation of Israel, that the Lord has laid on Him(Christ) the iniquities of “us all.” Who is the “us” referring to? It’s referring back to the “we.” And we know that “we” are “sheep.” And this all goes back to my original point I made, that sheep are the Children of God. So the sins of “us all(the sheep)” were laid on Christ.
I can see where you might get a limitation from the word “we,” because you could say that it refers to the people of Israel, God’s chosen nation. But ‘we’ does not refer to ‘sheep.’ The Word says “we like sheep.” It is a comparison not an identification.
What do you think?
Will Rogers I look forward to your response to Pastor Voegtlin’s question, but I do want to ask you plainly, did Jesus die only for the saved? Is it ok to say that Jesus died for the world (both saved and unsaved), even those who reject Him?
Calvinists argue this so many ways that in most cases, when they’re done, you aren’t so sure whether they themselves limit atonement. The plain reading of God’s Word does not. I have no doubt that a lot of Calvinists are smart people. However, knowledge puffeth up. Instead, man should surrender his reasoning to Scripture. James White writes in his The Potter’s Freedom: “It makes no sense for Christ to offer atonement for those the Father does not entrust to Him for salvation.” It makes sense to me, but whether it “makes” sense to me or not should not “make” any difference.
A lot of verses debunk limited atonement, but no matter how anyone slices Isaiah 53:6 it does not fit a limited atonement position. If “we” and “us” are only Israel, then is every Israelite saved? No, so now “all we” and “us all” are just “all” the saved Israelites, even though they are neither qualified as just Jews and especially as just the saved. Pastor Voegtlin makes the excellent point that they are “like sheep,” not sheep. These kinds of interpretations defy human languge, making words themselves meaningless.
“[b]I can see where you might get a limitation from the word “we,” because you could say that it refers to the people of Israel, God’s chosen nation. But ‘we’ does not refer to ’sheep.’ The Word says “we like sheep.” It is a comparison not an identification.
What do you think?
[/b]”
I can understand your point (and even agree) on the sheep. However I do want to ask you this.
Who is the “we” referring to? If not “saved” people then who? I say the “all” in this verse is in reference to the “we”.
Kent Brandenburg: “If ‘we’ and ‘us’ are only Israel, then is every Israelite saved?”
Kent,
“We” and Us” are only Israel and it means that every Israelite is saved. How do I get there? You must let scripture interpret scripture.
Dose scripture anywhere define who is Israel? Yes, Romans 9:6-8 – “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
So, who is Israel? All the saved who are the children of the promise. So, is Isaiah 53:6 difficult for a person who believes that Christ died for the elect? No. It actually confirms that their doctrine is correct.
“Who does the ‘we’ refer to?” That seems to be the important question. J. T. Borah says that Israel is the saved who are the children of promise. My question is, Who was Isaiah addressing when these words were spoken? Was he speaking/writing to all the saved, whether Jewish or Gentile? Or was he speaking/writing to the physical/national Israel that he lived among? If the latter, wouldn’t some of those he included in the “all we” be ones that were not regenerated?
Still wondering,
Jeff,
Something that might help you with your struggle understanding how a Calvinist sees no conflict between their beliefs and this verse is the idea of understanding a verse in its context.
If you look at verses four and five of the same chapter you will read “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”
Now when you read verse 6 within this context and see the continued use of “us” and “we” you can see that the context clearly means that the “us” and “we” are the ones who’s griefs have been bourne and sorrows have been carried away. They are the one’s who have peace with God and who have been healed with his stripes. This language cannot possibly apply to unregenerate since they are obviously still at war with God and they have not been healed.
BTW, where have you read that Calvinists have a hard time with Isaiah 53:6?
I said at the beginning that I heard this. It was on Sunday in the Sunday school lesson. It was just a comment made in passing, and when I heard it I thought, “Most calvinists don’t think they have a problem with any verses in the Bible, I wonder how they answer this?” Hence, the question.
BTW, are there any verses in the Bible that cause you to struggle with your theology?
I am sure there are passsage with which I struggle but I can’t recall them at this time. If you bring one up I’ll admit it. I will say that the usual ones that are pointed out (John 1:29, John 3:16, I Timothy 2:4, I John 2:2, II Peter 2:1 and II Peter 3:9), after careful study, don’t give me cause for concern.
One thing we must strive for is an understanding of how the scriptures never contradict themselves. If we find a passage that suits our personal beliefs and yet seems to run contrary to the rest of scripture then we have to figure out how to reconcile them.
The same people who point out the above passages don’t even attempt to reconcile them with Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24 and Hebrews 9:28. So they have six passages to which they point and we have six passages to which we point. So what do you do? Reconcile them. In my opinion, Calvinism does this better than a non-Calvinist approach.
BTW, I am interested in your reaction to my contextual argument as it relates to Isaiah 53:6. I hope you can see that our belief regarding particular redemption is very much supported by this passage.
1 John 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
(What about this verse? I really don’t want to introduce this verse as of yet, because I would like to make sure that we deal with the ‘sheep-identity-issue’ first, which I think is very interesting; I must say I never thought of, nor heard of, J.T. Borah’s contextual argument.)
I agree with Pastor Voegtlin’s comparison vs. identification point (because of the word ‘like’) that seems to me to be right on. “All we like sheep have gone astray” reminds me very much of ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’
I would agree that Jesus Christ died for the elect or saved people. BUT Jesus did not die ONLY for the saved people, He died even for those whom are not saved. (Proof text being 1 John 2:2)
Bill,
I will be glad to discuss I John 2:2, which may be the most difficult single verse with which to deal, after you guys have addressed the contextual argument.
It is passages like Isaiah 53:4-6 if read in context and using normal rules of grammar and english which led me to my beliefs. If I were you I would avoid the hermeneutic of hearing echoes in a verse from another verse. Let the passage speak for itself if possible. When impossible then let scripture interpret scripture.
This question is solved simply by letting the passage speak for itself. There really is no argument against what I have put out there unless you are going to engage in eisegeis instead of exegesis. One needs to be willing to leave their beliefs at the door and read the verse in its context.
Now, after reading it again, do you actually believe that the unregenerate can be described as having peace with God? Do you believe that an unsaved person can be described as having been healed with his stripes?
I don’t think anyone said it better than Spurgeon: “Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!”
So, lets now ask the question the way Spurgeon would ask it: Do you actually believe that people in hell at the time Jesus died could have been described as having peace with God? Do you actually believe that a person in hell at the time Jesus died could have been described as having been healed with his stripes?
The answer is clearly “No”.
J.T. Borah,
I offered 1 John 2:2 as a verse that I think would be difficult for limited atonement advocates to handle. Anyway, yes,,,we must deal with your contextual argument – first.
I think the point of Isa. 53:6 is as Pastor Voegtlin pointed out already. It compares us to sheep.
If the context refers to saved people – I am still ok with that because I believe that Jesus died for saved people.
The problem, I think, is did Christ die exclusively for saved people only.
We both believe that Christ died for saved people.
I say that Christ also died for the unsaved, and I think you don’t believe that.
I think Spurgeon was arguing against universal redemption, and limited atonement. I agree with him against ‘universal redemption,’ but I disagree with his view of limited atonement.
Bill,
I think I understand what you mean but I have one last question: Do you understand how I do not believe that Isaiah 53:6 can be used as a basis for a denial of limited atonement?
Did you mean to say that Spurgeon was arguing against limited atonement? I think I know what you meant but I want to make sure.
Presuming you disagree with Spurgeon on limited atonement could you point out what in his statement you view as unbiblical?
Based on your contextual argument, yes.
I meant Spurgeon was arguing against ‘universal redemption’ and for limited atonement.
I am against ‘universal redemption’ (i.e. Jesus died for all therefore all are and or will be saved, I think this is also called ‘universalism’).
“…to think that my Savior died for men who are or were in hell, seems a supposition to horrible for me to entertain.” I would disagree with the great preacher here.
Would I be correct in saying that you do not believe that Christ died for the unsaved? I would like to know your view on that. Is that what ‘limited atonement’ is? I do not want to mischaracterize your beliefs.
I’ll agree with J. T. Borah. The context makes it clear that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of all of us who were healed by His stripes.
Bill,
When you say that you disagree with Spurgeon on the portion of the quote you identified in your last post are you saying that you believe that Jesus “died for men who are or were in hell”?
No, you are not mischaracterizing my beliefs in stating that I do not believe that Jesus died for every man who ever lived. But the label of “limited atonement” does not do justice to our beliefs. We believe that the focus of the atonement of Jesus needs to be on the fact that he actually accomplished what he and the other two persons of the Trinity desired when he offered himself on the cross. He came to save his people from their sins and he did it. That is why I prefer “Definite Atonment” but TUDIP isn’t as good as TULIP.
An concept that convinced me is that of our rejection of double punishment. We would never accept that as fair and just in our court system and yet many of us seem to be OK with the idea that both Jesus and those who reject him are punished for the same sins. We are made in God’s image and part of our rejection of the idea of double jeopardy is based in the image bearing truth.
As John Owen said “[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But his unbelief, it is sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it. If so, then why must than hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”
On the other hand, the possibility that has to be admitted by those who oppose our position is that it was possible that Jesus would have died totally in vain. In other words it is consistent with that belief to believe that it was possible that absolutely nobody would have ever accepted the sacrifice and that everyone who ever lived would have gone to hell. By saying that Jesus’ death made everyone savable you are in fact saying that he did not necessarily save anyone he only made a possibilty.
Jeff,
Do you want to start another thread on I John 2:2?
J.T. Borah,
Yes, I believe Christ died for all (both saved and unsaved alike). Hebrews 2:9b “…that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
I certainly would like to hear your take on 1 John 2:2.
1 John 2:2 is Bill’s idea. If he wants to he can address that on his blog. Otherwise, I will post question the next time I run across one myself. I don’t want my blog to become only calvinist question (I don’t want to be limited, or particular in that way, if you get my definite drift.)
I am impressed that you have so many Calvinist readers, Pastor Voegtlin! Let me chime in here if I may.
I agree with many of the points made above. The verse says “us all” not simply “all”. And we look to the context for considering who the “us all” are.
Beyond verses 4 and 5, also notice this from verse 8 “…for the transgression of my people was he stricken”. Also vs. 11 says “…by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities”. And verse 12 adds “…he bare the sin of many…”.
This seems to make it crystal clear that the passage is stating that Jesus died to bear the sins of God’s people–the true Israel as someone pointed out above (cf. Rom. 9:6 and also 2:28-29). Or to put it another way, as verse 11 does, Jesus died to bear the sin of the “many” whom he justifies.
Bill Hardecker asks: “Would I be correct in saying that you do not believe that Christ died for the unsaved? I would like to know your view on that. Is that what ‘limited atonement’ is? I do not want to mischaracterize your beliefs.”
I am glad he shows this attitude, as many don’t really understand what Calvinists are really saying. Or worse, they think they do and don’t. The subject matter as presented in Scripture is somewhat complex, but I will allow that some of us Calvinists are too wordy and unclear (myself included as this comment will unfortunately demonstrate). Regardless, let me attempt to be brief as I offer this clarification.
Limited Atonement, also called Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement, basically states that Jesus died for the elect in a sense that he did not die for the non elect. Jesus’ death purchased general blessings for all: namely that God is graciously not casting everyone into hell immediately. Jesus’ death also allows the preaching of the gospel to be done for all peoples. But Jesus’ death does more than that, it also actually saves the elect.
Both Calvinists and most non-Calvinists agree that not everyone will be saved. So we agree that the atonement is limited in some sense. The debate is not so much over whether the atonement is limited or not, it is over what the atonement actually is. The nature of the atonement is at stake.
Calvinists agree that anyone who truly believes or wants to believe (whosoever will) will ultimately be saved and is covered by Christ’s blood. But for a Calvinist, belief is not some natural ability that everyone has, since we believe that everyone’s natures are so corrupted by sin that they will never want to seek after God. Jesus died, however, to purchase us the gift of faith and repentance, he died to actually save us.
The non Calvinist position, essentially says that faith must be a human addition to Christ’s atonement. At the end of the day, Christ’s atonement saves no one without that addition of faith. People are cast into hell because they refused Christ’s offer of salvation not because of their sin, since their sins were cancelled by Christ’s blood already.
You see, Calvinists do not look at the salvation Christ bought on the cross as a potential salvation, contingent on human faith. But rather as actual salvation, which God the Holy Spirit will actually in the future effect in the lives of all the elect.
For an even better explanation of this, see this article on particular redemption by John Piper (from his short booklet explaining/defending the 5 points of Calvinism) or this sermon manuscript on Heb. 2:9. He explains it better than I. The first article explains 1 Jn. 2:2 well, and the second one deals with Heb. 2:9 (verses brought up above by Bill Hardecker). Suffice it to say that the context after Heb. 2:9 makes it clear that the elect people of God are in view with the term “every man”, and that 1 Jn. 2:2 is referring to the elect of God scattered throughout the whole world.
Finally, everyone reading this should know that while historic Calvinism affirms particular redemption, there have been some forms of Calvinism that modify that position. Today there are many 4 point Calvinists, who affirm the basic gist of almost everything Calvinism affirms, but also state that Jesus died for all. Thus to disprove this one point is not at all to disprove Calvinism. For the record I do hold to particular redemtion.
Thanks for the interesting post, Pastor Voegtlin. God bless you and all your readers richly through Christ Jesus.
Bob Hayton
Bill,
But you agree that Isaish 53:6 is not a verse on which you can base your belief that Jesus died for every man who ever lived, right?
Jeff,
I get your drift. I will look for Bill’s blog to address I John 2:2. I have not been able to find it yet.
I pray that you will have a great day tomorrow worshipping our Saviour who God struck, smote and afflicted for us. The Saviour who bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. The Saviour whose chastisement brought us peace and whose stripes healed us.
A passage I would leave you with is the ESV version of Luke 2:13-14 – And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
We have been healed and God has declared peace with us. It is an amazing thought to realize that we who were once children of wrath are not only at peace with our creator but we are actually his children. He is really pleased with us only because of our elder brother. Hallelujah!! What a Saviour.
You can always depend on Bob for a long post and a link to John Piper!
I don’t know that I have a lot of calvinist readers. The first commenter mentioned my question on the FF discussion board. I think that brought them over.
I would not base my belief that Jesus died for every man who ever lived strictly on Isa. 53:5-6 simply because it seems that three views are possible (it could be referring to Jews, or the elect, or all of mankind). Your view seems probable. Especially in application to the healing (in verse 5). “by His stripes we ARE healed.”
Jeff,
I am able to confirm that I am one of those Calvinists brought over here from the FFF.
Bill,
I continue to disagree with you that there are more views possible than the one I hold. But I view it as progress in the discuss to read your conclusion that mine is “probable”.
Now, as to I John 2:2, I think it would it be highjacking a thread to start a discussion about it on here. Especially since Jeff has stated no interest in that discussion at this time.
I would commend to you the post by fundyreformed Bob. It explains alot of the discussion surrounding many of the apparent “universal” verses not the least of which is I John 2:2.
” Jeff Voegtlin on December 9th, 2006
You can always depend on Bob for a long post and a link to John Piper!
I don’t know that I have a lot of calvinist readers. The first commenter mentioned my question on the FF discussion board. I think that brought them over.”
PV that was ok, wasn’t it? After all I thought you really wanted some serious inquiries.
Yes, that was just fine.
Jeff,
I do want to commend you and the others who participated in this discussion for the way in which you participated.
It seems as if these discussions can’t be carried on in a way that honors our Lord but this thread proved it was. Thank you.
I look forward to your future Q&As about Calvinism and I hope they are conducted in the same way.
Wonderful post!!!
Actually the link to Piper was not originally planned. I looked quickly for some other link, but I didn’t have much time to surf so I fell back on my pastor’s articles.
You’re right about long posts though 😉
I would guess that no one here looked at the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:6. Here is a word-for-word, literal wording: “All we like the sheep have gone astray, man toward the road has turned, so Jehovah attacked by him the inquity all us.” The previous verses do not use the term “all.” The Hebrew has the axiomatic word “man.” It is a believing Israelite writing, Isaiah, but he is saying clearly that all (not just “we”) have gone astray, and then “man” has turned from the way (not Israel, but “man”), and then Jehovah dealt with the iniquity of “all we” by him. Isaiah is not using redundance. Man has turned off the path and all Israel has gone astray. This sets off v. 6 from the previous context, because the previous context does not use the word “all” and it does not use the word “man” (ish).
Kent,
Is that your own translation of the Hebrew or are you using a resource? If you are using a resource please let us know what it is?
Thanks.
I looked at the Hebrew words, one by one, translating them one by one. It is something I usually do when I prepare a message–look at each word in the language in which it is written. If you don’t know the Hebrew and wonder about the Greek, the LXX, could be translated: “All as sheep have gone astray, man from his way has been led astray, and the Lord handed over Him for the inquity of us.” It translates the Hebrew “ish” into the Greek “anthropos.” It is looking at mankind as going astray, thus that word.
Kent,
Do you have any formal training in the Hebrew language or are you just using Strong’s?
J. T., before I answer your question, do you know what “ish” and “anthropos” mean? I think you could know that the word anthropos is “man.” I wrote that so that it would be easier for you to understand that what I was saying was true. Also, do you think I would translate before messages if I was using Strongs? That would be a lengthy process, if you know what I mean. I was a Biblical Languages major in college which meant Greek and Hebrew, and then I got an M.A., and then M. Div., continuing my language study and translation of the Bible in the original languages. Did you know that people who believe the perfect preservation of Scripture also study the original languages? That is also part of our understanding of the sovereignty of God and a presuppositional apologetic.
I was just wondering, however, what someone was going to do with the word “man” in God’s Word in Isaiah 53:6, which says that v. 6 is not just the Jews, but is axiomatic.
Thanks for the interaction. 🙂
Kent,
I am glad to hear that you have original languages training. I am handicapped in this area since I have no, zero, nada original languages training. Being an attorney I do know a couple Latin phrases. 🙂 BTW, what colleges granted you degrees?
Do I think you would translate before messages if you were using Strongs? I don’t know you, and I hope you are different, but from my experience the answer is very easily “Yes”.
As far as whether I knew that people who believe the perfect preservation of Scripture also study the original languages I would say that I absolutely believe that to be true. In our denomination we believe that Scripture has been perfectly preserved in the original languages so I would expect that our ministers would actually study the original languages. As an elder in my church I would expect nothing less.
Back to the topic at hand, you ask the question “I was just wondering, however, what someone was going to do with the word “man” in God’s Word in Isaiah 53:6, which says that v. 6 is not just the Jews, but is axiomatic.” I would refer you to any translation of which I am aware for you to see what a whole host of other men have done with the Hebrew word “iysh”. None of them seem to believe what you are stating that the word is self-evidently anthropos meaning man generally, including the KJV.
I do have several translations, including a couple literal translations, to which I refer when discussing different passages of scripture. I can’t help but wonder why you are the only person to translate Isaiah 53:6 the way you do.
The two literal translations I have translate it as follows: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have each one turned to his own way; and Jehovah made meet in Him the iniquity of all of us.” and “All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned, And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, The punishment of us all.”
As you can see there is no idea of a disconnect between the common subject running through the passage that being all people whose stripes have been healed and who have peace with God.
Is there any other translation to which you can point that translates verse 6 in the same way that you do?
I think I know your beliefs as they relate to the extent of the atonement but I don’t think you can rely on this passage for those beliefs.
A possible way of reconciling your beliefs on the extent of the atonement and this passage is to do exactly what Bill Hardecker did above. That is, acknowledge that Isaiah 53:4-6 only addresses the extent of the atonement as it relates to saved people but by doing so it does not necessairly mean that the atonement wasn’t general in its extent. To that you would need to go to other passages of scripture and there are other passages that seem to be more apparent in espousing a general atonement view.
If I don’t get back on here, it really is that I am away from a computer big chunks of time. For instance, this was my first time on here today. And I am listening to “In the Garden,” which, Jeff, I am thinking is possibly a joke coming from you since, if I remember, it is one of the most doctrinally ambiguous songs out there.
OK, J.T. I think it is a bad thing to go to Scripture with one’s mind made up on any issue. I believe it is important to take the clear reading of Scripture. When we study it, we should understand that God did use certain words for a certain reason. You seem less inclined to accept the idea that since “ish” is not used to in the previous verses, that we have something here purposefully different. If I see “man” in the text, I think man. I can appreciate that you’ve read translations. You, however, are making a point of doctrine from the translation not understanding that the people hearing this in that day would have heard the word they would have universally understood as “man.” Why would you not want to understand it that way? If we are gleaning a point of doctrine, we ought to gain it from the text. You gave an argument from the preceding context, and I am telling you that different words are used here. “All” is not found in the previous verses, and the word for “man” is not found in the previous verses. That does mean something J. T. I am not attempting to reconcile anything with my belief about the atonement. I want to know what the Bible teaches.
What I can see you perhaps not liking is that the Bible, by using the word “man” and twice using “all,” is contradicting your position on the atonement. I don’t have to keep a “limited atonement” position alive—that is correct. I’m not attempting to kill that position or to help it exist. What I see is that there are no limited atonement verses in the Bible, but lots of unlimited atonement verses. I receive that by faith, just like I receive the doctrine of the Trinity by faith, and receive the doctrine of Noah’s flood by faith.
Here, by the way, is what Spurgeon said about this in his autobiography (vol. 1, p. 174): “I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all the world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed the Master’s law. Once admit infinity into the matter and limit is out of the question. Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
I attended Marantha Baptist Bible College and Graduate School of Theology. I was awarded the top Greek student at graduation and graduated Magna Cum Laude. I tell you this only for your information.
Thanks for your interaction, J. T.
Kent,
STOP THE MUSIC!!!! 😦
I’ll make it quick to get the music to stop. If I can’t get that song out of my head I will blame you.
I hear your arguments for your position but you failed to address my one question to you in my last post: “Is there any other translation to which you can point that translates verse 6 in the same way that you do?”
(Finally, the music stopped!!!)
With regards to Spurgeon quotes I trust you will admit that we can both quote him on this issue. For instance here is a very strong statement against an alleged unlimited atonement view “[t]he Arminians say, ‘Christ died for all men.’ Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, ‘No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if ?’ and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
It is arguments like this one that makes we prefer the term of “Definite Atonement” in describing what I believe about the atonement. I believe it is a more precise term.
Spurgeon was a man of his times and one of the battles he had was with hyper-Calvinists which led him to make apparently contradictory statements. We, unlike the Bible, are inconsitent and contradictory at times so it is not up to us to reconcile Spurgeon we must reconcile scripture.
BTW, I went to MBBC’s basketball camp as a freshman and junior in High School. That was back in 1977 and 1979 I think. I went to camp with Tracy Terrill when his dad coached bball in Normal, Illinois, I think. I think he is yonger than me.
I have to admit to what I hope is godly jealousy when you tell me about your degree. As an elder in my denomination I am allowed to take one class per semester for free at Westminster Seminary in Dallas and I am thinking of taking the original languages.
I look forward to your response specifically to whether there is another legitimate tranlsation or translations that support your argument. Have a great day.
JT,
I did some checking of my own, and I did find an online Hebrew interlinear which gave the literal Hebrew as follows: “all-of-us as-flock we-strayed man to-way-of-him we-faced and-Yahweh he-intercedes in-him >> depravity-of all-of-us” You can see it for yourself here (pdf).
But I did not find any translation which translated “man” literaly there. Also, from Gesenius (and also Strongs), the word can mean “each, every one”. BDB says it can mean “each, every”. It appears that virtually all translators of all eras agree it should be rendered as each or every. Thus I think it is significant to depart from that understanding of the word to avoid any seeming agreement with limited atonement.
Personally, I don’t see any problem reconciling a translation using man with limited atonement. Especially because the context (as my second post above shows) overwhelmingly supports the idea that the suffering was for the sins of a select group of people. The Hebrew expression meaning “all-of-us” begins and ends the verse. It seems the “man” phrase can either be understood as all translators do as referring to “each” or “every” of the “all-of-us” or that it could be seen as describing how the “all-of-us” strayed. They strayed in a “man”-ful kind of way. They strayed as men turn to their own ways. The last phrase would revert back to describing the “all-of-us” as being the recipients of Christ’s intercessory/atonement work.
Incidentally, the quote that Brandenburg references by Spurgeon affirms limited atonement. It agrees with what Calvinists actually believe. We believe that 1) Christ’s atoning work and the blood He spilt is certainly able to save all due to its infinite merit. But 2) That atonement work was limited by God’s intent, which intent was only to redeem his people and then to justly condemn the rest for their sin. Notice especially Spurgeon’s last sentence from that quote.
I agree with you JT that this verse does not support indefinite or unlimited/general atonement. But I also agree with you that this verse by itself does not teach a limited or definite atonement. It is harmonious with such teaching, but does not teach it.
Well, that concludes another “long post” but no link to Piper this time 😉
I don’t try to reconcile my doctrine with the text. I get my doctrine from the text. The plain reading of this is unlimited atonement. Starting with plain reading, we read unlimited atonement. Then, the first step in rightly dividing is looking at the internal context, the words of the text. I look here and I see “all” and “man” and “all.” The first half of v. 6 is tied into the second half of v. 6. “Ish” is not an adjective, Bob, so “mannish” doesn’t work. The point of “ish” as you read the foremost lexiconal work HALOT and then reading TWOT, is to show universality. The translation “every” does not rule out “man,” but accomplishes several things: (1) It shows the universality of MAN—every man, (2) It shows that it is not one ethnicity or race or people, but man, and (3) shows that every individual man has gone astray. TWOT says that it functions in a broadly inclusive sense. HALOT says “every man, whoever he may be.” So, the translation of “every” does not make this something less than “man.” The translators were not attempting to take man out of it, but to do exactly what it is that the verse says: “every man, all inclusive.” The “mannish” idea, making it adjective, when it is a noun, is such a stretch, that ought to stick out to any exegete who is studying it as a force to fit a predisposed notion. By the way, notice that the ESV, what I’ve noticed to be the favorite translation of young reformed, says “every one,” that is, every man. Not every Jew, but every man. I don’t like the pick your translation to get your doctrine, and it shows the problems of multiple translations. Men often take whatever translation teaches what is most convenient for them.
Previous to this verse, we do not get “all” in any of the previous or following context, setting this verse off in its teaching. The closest time that the Hebrew term for “all” is used is found in Isaiah 54:5, and there it says the “whole earth.” Is that just talking about Israel, Palestine, (in other words, all the earth of Israel) or would that be the whole earth? All we is that same as every man. This does not limit it to just Israel, but broadens it to include every human being.
In my first post, I said that by the time one gets done reading the limited atonement people, they don’t sound limited anymore. Bob reads Spurgeon’s quote and says it supports limited atonement. Only a Calvinist could read that and say it “supports” it. At most anyone unbiased would say that, reading it, it sounds unlimited. I’m doubting that Spurgeon was Calvinistic. He himself said in his autobiography that he was not one in all points, but that he was one. Also noticed the strained position, saying that it is unlimited merit but limited in intent. Bob would say that Jesus wasn’t paying for the sins of the whole world on the cross, but for the sins of those God intended to save. That makes it limited.
Regarding the “contextual arguments” to which you refer Bob, unlimited atonement is proven by a universal reference—every man. It is not disproven by a text saying that He died for many, since many is part of every. The Bible also says that He died for me (Gal. 2:20). Not even Calvinists attempt to argue from that text that Christ died only for Paul.
The exegesis of Bob above is clearly faulty. It strains to fit something into the text. To say the last phrase “reverts back” to limited atonement when it says “all us.” The “all us” is the “every man.” It doesn’t “revert.” Saying it “reverts” is twisting the passage. The “all we” is the “every man” is the “all us.” Everyone has turned and Jesus died for everyone. Only those who believe receive the benefits, who are the elect. Just because Isaiah, speaking to Judah, says that the Messiah would come to save the Jews, doesn’t mean that v. 6 does not broaden into the axiomatic truth that God laid on His Son the iniquity of every man. We are first responsible to look at the words in the verse before we broaden to the context. To be consistent, in Isaiah 52:12, when the text says his visage was marred more than any man, was that just Jewish men? When Isaiah 53:3 says he was despised and rejected of men, is “men” just Jewish men? Were the Roman crucifiers not a part of “men” there? Just because the pronoun “we” is used all throughout doesn’t mean that the truth is limited to just Judahites. No way.
Pastor Brandenburg,
What about the phrase ‘by his stripes we are healed?’
a. Is it right to say that the healing in the text means ‘Salvation?’
b. Is it saying then that through his stripes is the possibility of healing (available for those who trust Him) or is it saying that whoever the ‘WE’ is ‘are healed’ (i.e. saved)?
JFYI, I meant to say I’m not doubting Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but the context of that paragraph would show I left that out.
Bill, it does say “we are healed,” not “we all are healed.” Why? Because healing was only for those like Isaiah who had humbly come to God. Not every man was healed. However all the iniquities of everyone were laid on Him. He atoned for everyone but He healed only those who received Him, like we know Isaiah did and is given as an example of having done so in Isaiah 6, a pivotal chapter in Isaiah, giving a saving example to every Judahite to whom Isaiah was preaching. Bill, who wasn’t healed through his stripes? Anyone? Since there is no one that is healed other than by his stripes, we must say that we are healed by his stripes. However, in v. 5 it doesn’t say “we.” It says “all we” and then “every man” and then “all us.” The all we are the every every man who are the all us. Unlimited atonement, limited healing.
By the way, just curious, do reformed believe that OT saints were regenerated preceding faith? It would seem that they would need to in order to be consistent in their soteriology. Perhaps you guys can get out that reformed theology book to find out what your answer is on OT saints.
Pastor Brandenburg,
If that “mannish” idea is wrong so be it. I’ll just stand with EVERY translation. The KJV says (by the way the ESV only changes “hath” to “has” here)
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
The reference for we must be outside of this verse. And the “all” is used to stress that each of the “we” have gone astray. The “every one” accomplishes the same thing. The verse on the face of it clearly means the following:
“All of us like sheep have gone astray, we have turned each one of us to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of al of us.”
The we or us in context is the “my people” of vs. 8 and those who are healed and have peace in vs. 5. It is the “many ” of vs. 12 and those justified in vs. 11.
I refuse to change the obvious meaning of the Hebrew (as reflected in every English translation) to go with a private interpretation which extrapolates the Hebrew word for man and make it control the verse to such a degree that wrenches it from the flow of the passage.
Bob
By the way, if anyone is interested in that Spurgeon quote from above, they can see a discussion of it here with some more of the following context. You will see the discussion towards the top of that document under the heading: “A Glowing Example: Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the Atonement” Incidentally, it was craftily used by Dave Hunt in his book against Calvinism to make it look like Spurgeon did not believe in definite atonement.
Virtually all Calvinists would agree it is not a matter of the worth of Christ’s sacrifice but only a matter of the intent of the Father for that sacrifice. The sacrifice was done to purify for himself a people for his own possession (Titus 2:14), to cleanse his bride (Eph. 5:25-27), and to puchase to himself his church (Acts 20:28).
Also see page 105 and 106 of this critique by Dave Doran of Hunt’s book concerning that same Spurgeon quote above.
Kent,
The only reformed theology book necessary to answer your question is the Bible. 🙂 The NT informs us as to how the OT saints were saved. Romans 3:21-25 – “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”
We believe that all people from all of history who are saved were saved in the exact same way. The Ordo Salutis has been the same at all times.
I really appreciate the interaction with you on this verse and topic but I don’t think further discussion of this verse will be prodcutive. I see that you are still unable to provide any other any tranlsation that agrees with you. It is my opinion that your reading of the ESV at this point to be strained and forced.
IMO, I think that an unbiased reading of the posts clearly demonstrates who is straining to eisegete instead of exegete. I simply point to the context, simple rules of grammar and the historical record for my beliefs. I find it forced to argue that throughout this passage we agree that Isaiah is talking about the ones who are healed and who have peace with God and then all of a sudden he has a momentary reference to all people who have ever lived. IMO, that is a stretch.
I believe that this position is supported by all the translations. This is where I trust Jesus when he said that the Holy Spirit will lead us (the church) into all truth. You, in fact, could be correct in your translation and the rest of the church has missed it for thousands of years. I tend to doubt that possibility although it is possible.
I look forward to future exchanges with you because I have enjoyed this one because of the way in which you conducted yourself and the way you treated me.
Thank you.
Bob,
I like what you said when you said “[v]irtually all Calvinists would agree it is not a matter of the worth of Christ’s sacrifice but only a matter of the intent of the Father for that sacrifice.”
That really is the point of the “L” and that is why I really dislike the “L” and prefer “Definite Atonement”
JT
First, I have no problem with the translation.
None of you knew the word was “ish” for “man.” And that word is different than what was in what you call the “flow” of the passage. Every one/every man adds to universality. You aren’t dealing with this. In the previous few verses, I don’t have a problem with Isaiah talking to Judah about her healing (knowing that she shouldn’t be trusting in Assyria or Egypt for help, but in God her Deliverer), but in v. 6 he changes the language to indicate universality. He is referencing not only Israel, but every man. “Every one” is not “every one in Israel” but “every man.” Bob says it is showing individuality by saying “all.” That’s incredulous. Saying all is to show universality not individuality. I quoted HALOT—this is used purposefuly to show universality. That is a grammatical point. You are arguing against that grammatical point, and to do so, Bob, you turn the word into an adjective and make it “mannish,” taking a scorched earth method, resorting to anything you can to win your predisposition. The word is “man,” so he broadens “the flow” with the use of that word only here in this context (which means something), plus the use of “all” at the beginning and “all” at the end. Your “flow argument doesn’t work. I think anyone reading can tell that I looked at the Hebrew, and you didn’t. That’s what they can tell. It is false to say that I am opposing the translations. I have no problem with the KJV translation at all. I’m simply explaining what it is saying. HALOT and TWOT agree with my observation. You ignore the use of the Words here, the syntax, at your own loss. You also ignore the other arguments for universality in the other examples of the usage of “all” and “man” in the near context. You essentially disregarded those examples I gave, which doesn’t stand well for your approach to Scripture. You provided no opposing examples to support your view, just essentially tossed the game board and pieces and said “game over, maybe we’ll play again sometime.”
On the quote of Spurgeon, I quoted it in context. Don’t assume I got that from Dave Hunt. I didn’t crack Dave Hunt for anything. What Spurgeon said stands as is. I don’t deny he was a Calvinist, just that he said that in his autobiography. It stands on face value on his own. People can understand it. We don’t have to spin it.
Regarding OT salvation, if Holy Spirit regeneration precedes faith, that would be a hardship for OT believers, because the OT doesn’t teach that. We don’t have that ministry of the Holy Spirit in the OT. If the OT and the NT are the same, as you say, which I believe (Rom. 4), then neither Testament teaches regeneration preceding faith.
Again, what rules of grammar is anyone pointing to? Good hermeneutics starts with the internal context and then moves out from there. The Words themselves must mean what you say for that interpretation. Grammar and syntax says universality. And every translation that says “every” agrees with my interpretation, which I have now mentioned at least three times, which happens to be the KJV and ESV as well as many others. Bob, in your “face value” “translation” you purposefully change “every” to “each” betraying your own ESV, let alone the KJV, just so that you can keep your limited atonement. Notice that folks—he changes “every” to “each”—mark that down. Bob says his position is reflected in every English translation and then takes those English translations and makes “every” into “each.” That changes the meaning of the verse from “universality” to “individuality.” No, Bob.
Kent,
You still fail to produce a version that agrees with you. Me thinks you do protest too much. It seems that you realize that you are fighting the history of biblical interpretation to force your bias into the passage. Again this passage is not the end-all and be-all of either position.
Also, with regard to how OT saints were saved the NT tells us in the passage I gave earlier. Do you not believe that what is in the Old Testament concealed is in the New Testament revealed? When we have questions about the OT we go to the NT especially as it relates to salvation.
I hope you realize that this discussion (OT salvation) has nothing to do with the original post. Maybe you can start a thread on this topic on your blog. Or, Pastor Jeff, if he feels inclined to discuss the Ordo Salutis, can start one here. In the meantime, we continue to wait for a version that agrees with your translation.
I think Kent has a point that is supported by the translations that we use. If you look at the passage, all the references to “we” are used with only the “we” before verse six. In verse six we see “all we” and “us all.” This, even in English, sets the verse apart from the regular pronoun usage throughout the passage. Do you all see the same thing?
JV: I think Kent has a point that is supported by the translations that we use.
JTB: What translation do you use?
JV: This, even in English, sets the verse apart from the regular pronoun usage throughout the passage. Do you all see the same thing?
JTB: No. “Setting apart a verse” sounds a whole lot like “ripping it out of its context” to me. I am hesitant to approach scripture that way. In fact, if I find myself doing it I abandon it immediately. I could be wrong, and am willing to consider that possibility, but I think reading a verse in context is the only way in which to approach scripture.
Again look at the context. Read the whole chapter again, its not that long.
Verse 5 “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
Verse 8 “…for the transgression (Hebrew – rebellion, sin, etc.) of my people was he stricken.”
Verse 11 “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”
Verse 12 “because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
The consitent contextual reading of the passage is Christ bore the punishment of the elect. If he bore the sins of any person that person is saved.
Another thing you might want to consider is the appearance of “iysh” other places in this chapter. The word is used three times in the chapter. The translators translated the previous two times as “men” or “man”. Why would they then translate this term in verse 6 as “every one” indicating every one Isaiah has been talking about as opposed to “every man” or “all men”? Maybe it has to do with Hebrew grammar. I don’t know but I still see a consistency between the translations that is contrary to Kent’s translation.
Can you give us another example of a passage from which you think it is good hermeneutics to “set apart a verse” from its context?
Here now, I did read the whole chapter before posting my last comment, but I’ll read it again. (BTW, I read the KJV, but I’ll read the ESV this time.)
It’s still there. I know “setting apart a verse” sounds like “ripping it out of context,” but what I was trying to say is that good hermeneutics looks at the words in the text. At no other time in the whole chapter is the plural pronoun near the word “all.” Therefore, good hermeneutics says that those plural pronouns could/probably have different antecedents than all the rest that do not have the “all” near them.
I guess that what I’m saying is that the author Himself set the verse and pronouns apart from the rest of the chapter by using the word “all.” I’m not trying to pull the verse out of context. The verse because of what it says and how it declares it “jumps out” from the rest of the passage.
Jeff and Kent,
I see what you guys are saying and why you are saying it but, IMO, it only jumps out of the page if one brings a bias to the passage. I am sure you both would say that it also DOESN”T jump out if a bias it brought to the passage. 🙂 It appears to me that at least we agree that the rest of the chapter supports the idea of a definite atonement and not a general atonement.
At the very least, I hope we were able to show you how we don’t believe that “this verse ‘obviously’ shows that the iniquities of all were laid upon Christ.” I would hope that by now you would agree that there is a reasonable argument against such a statement about which good men can disagree and still count each others as brother in Christ, Whitefield and Wesley for instance. I wish we had more of a spirit of cooperation amongst Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Maybe you in your spheres of influence and ours we can make a little difference in this area.
Men who make statement such as the one that led to the start of this thread while not really knowing the arguments from “the other side” should not be allowed to teach. Do they actually believe that we have not dealt with these passages in coming to our beliefs? If they actually believe this it is dangerous for them to handle scripture. If they knew our beliefs they could easily look at the passage and see how we get where we are. The inability to do this should concern anyone in church leadership as to the qualifications of the teacher.
I would just encourage you to encourage your SS teachers to actualy know what the arguments are. They need to get OUR materials and not rely on secondary sources. I would also ask you to constantly remind your SS teachers of James 3:1 which tells us that “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” They are tasked with teaching our holy faith and to mishandle it is a grave thing.
I pray that your ministries will prosper as you minister in your part of God’s vineyard as I hope you will pray for us.
JT
Pastor Brandenburg,
I have already said that “mannish” was an error on my part. As for seeing “every” as “each”, I was merely trying to explain its meaning, which I will continue to try to do so in what follows. I do not have access to HALOT, but I was able to look up TWOT (online here) and found the following quotes:
“The word…connotes primarily the concept of man as an individual….” “Frequently the word functions as an individualizing element connoting the concept ‘each’ as in ‘each person’ (Gen 10:5). It also functions in a broadly inclusive sense meaning ‘whoever’ (Lev 15:5).”
I found nothing about the word indicating “universality”. I found nothing about “universality” in my BDB or in the Gesenius lexicon available here. You make a big deal about the TWOT saying “broadly inclusive” but if you read the quote in context as I give it above, you notice TWOT says it “frequently” “functions as an individualizing element” meaning “each” and that it “also functions in a broadly inclusive sense” meaning “whoever”.
I did look up the Hebrew word ‘ish (Strong’s number 0376) and found several examples, some in Isaiah, of the word stressing the sense of “each” or as TWOT says functioning as an “individualizing element”. In other words “each person of” or “every one” of a select group. In all the examples, it was the context which indicated which “each ones” or “every ones” were in view. See the examples I have listed here below. Is. 53:6 as translated by KJV/ESV fits right in with this fairly common usage of the word. In none of these cases would the fact that ‘ish is used demand that we infer that every person in all humaninty is being referred to.
I understand Is. 53:6 includes “all we” and “us all” besides this word translated “every one”. I am not proficient enough in Hebrew to discuss that thoroughly. But it seems easy enough to understand it in English as “all of us”. The us is defined in the context, and vs. 6 goes from the collective nation’s problems to stressing that each individual within the nation of Israel or the remnant is also guilty of sins. It is “all of us” not merely “some of us”. That is the emphasis I see in the verse. As JT points out, there is more than sufficient basis both within the verse itself and with the immediate context for me to see no threat at all to my belief in definite atonement (L) which I see clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. The position you are advocating seems patently novel. None of the commentaries I consulted conclude this way. In fact the scholarly Word Biblical commentary on Isaiah (by John D. W. Watts), which is liberal in many respects (ie. its treatment of 7:14 and its position on the unity of Isaiah) and most likely would not have any predisposed notion to defend limited atonement translates the Hebrew of Is. 53:6 as follows: “All of us like sheep stray away. Each of us—we turn to our own way. But Yahweh laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
I am not stretching the Hebrew to make my point. It seems that you are doing so. At the very least both interpretations are highly probable (and this is giving you some benefit of doubt). Given the context and the examples I cite, as well as the quotes from TWOT, you should at least allow that I am not twisting Scripture intentionally by understanding the passage in this way. I would be interested in any longer HALOT quotations you might have, but as of yet I remain unconvinced of your position.
Here are the examples I have (there are more, but I will just limit myself to these). If one or more can be explained away, they all cannot. It seems fairly conclusive to me.
Is. 3:5 And the people [5971] shall be oppressed [5065], every one [0376] by another [0376], and every one [0376] by his neighbour [7453]: the child [5288] shall behave himself proudly [7292] against the ancient [2205], and the base [7034] against the honourable [3513].
context “every one” of the common people of Judah (cf. v. 1)
Is. 14:18 All the kings [4428] of the nations [1471], even all of them, lie [7901] in glory [3519], every one [0376] in his own house [1004].
“every one” of the “kings of the nations”
Is. 19:2 And I will set [5526] the Egyptians [4714] against the Egyptians [4714]: and they shall fight [3898] every one [0376] against his brother [0251], and every one [0376] against his neighbour [7453]; city [5892] against city [5892], and kingdom [4467] against kingdom [4467].
“every one” of the “Egyptians”
Is. 31:7 For in that day [3117] every man [0376] shall cast away [3988] his idols [0457] of silver [3701], and his idols [0457] of gold [2091], which your own hands [3027] have made [6213] unto you for a sin [2399].
context “every man” of the “children of Israel” (v. 6) and who actually has idols (there always will be a remnant so it obviously does not mean all people everywhere)
Is. 36:16 Hearken [8085] not to Hezekiah [2396]: for thus saith [0559] the king [4428] of Assyria [0804], Make [6213] an agreement with me by a present [1293], and come out [3318] to me: and eat [0398] ye every one [0376] of his vine [1612], and every one [0376] of his fig tree [8384], and drink [8354] ye every one [0376] the waters [4325] of his own cistern [0953];
context “every one” of the nation of Judah, whom Rabshakeh is addressing
Is. 47:15 Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured [3021], even thy merchants [5503], from thy youth [5271]: they shall wander [8582] every one [0376] to his quarter [5676]; none shall save [3467] thee.
“every one” of the “merchants”
Is. 53:6 All we like sheep [6629] have gone astray [8582]; we have turned [6437] every one [0376] to his own way [1870]; and the LORD [3068] hath laid [6293] on him the iniquity [5771] of us all.
context “every one” of the remnant of Israel–immediate context (vs. 4-5 and 7ff.)
Is. 56:11 Yea, they are greedy [5794] [5315] dogs [3611] which can [3045] never have [3045] enough [7654], and they are shepherds [7462] that cannot understand [0995]: they all look [6437] to their own way [1870], every one [0376] for his gain [1215], from his quarter [7097].
context “every one” of the “watchman” (v. 10)
Gen. 34:25 And it came to pass on the third [7992] day [3117], when they were sore [3510], that two [8147] of the sons [1121] of Jacob [3290], Simeon [8095] and Levi [3878], Dinah’s [1783] brethren [0251], took [3947] each man [0376] his sword [2719], and came [0935] upon the city [5892] boldly [0983], and slew [2026] all the males [2145].
“each man” of “Dinah’s brethren”
Gen. 40:5 And they dreamed [2492] a dream [2472] both of them [8147], each man [0376] his dream [2472] in one [0259] night [3915], each man [0376] according to the interpretation [6623] of his dream [2472], the butler [8248] and the baker [0644] of the king [4428] of Egypt [4714], which [were] bound [0631] in the prison [1004] [5470]. (see also 41:11-12)
“each man” of the butler and baker
Gen. 44:11 Then they speedily [4116] took down [3381] every man [0376] his sack [0572] to the ground [0776], and opened [6605] every man [0376] his sack [0572]. (see also vs. 1 and 13)
context “every man” of the sons of Jacob that were there in Egypt
Ex. 1:1 Now these are the names [8034] of the children [1121] of Israel [3478], which came [0935] into Egypt [4714]; every man [0376] and his household [1004] came [0935] with Jacob [3290].
“every man” of the Israelites
JT,
If I may interject here, this thread began on a more inquisitive note, so it is forgivable that they really might not know the arguments from the “other side” as you have said. I don’t believe the spirit in which this discussion began is as hostile as you make it out to be. I’m sure the men you are referring to understand that you have dealt with rebuttles like theirs on your own when coming to your decisions about the above topic and the like. To my knowledge, no one has questioned your ability to be studious. I’ve met many people with different world views, some more bizzare than others. Many had good arguments that make you think, but the truth is, often times people espouse false doctrine and make valient efforts to prove it because they thrive on being contrary; some under more academic pretenses than others. You also said, “If they knew our beliefs they could easily look at the passage and see how we get where we are.” It’s not that easy to conclude the way you have. The points that Kent Brandenberg has made seem much more sensible to me, a guy who at the beginning of this thread was unaware of the depth that this topic could obtain. You made me question my own beliefs, and at times almost totally convinced me. I am willing to accept your arguments as true should they prove more reasonable, but the reasoning you offered was a bit too much of a stretch. I agree that great men have written much in support of your views, but a good example from my own profession is that people exposed eachother to x-radiation for decades before they discovered that it is harmful to ones health. The human race has a long, sad history of being wrong. I’ll spare you more examples. So as was said in previous posts, we must approach Scripture without bias and formulate our doctine from what it says, not forgetting that a contrary spirit can be just as much of a bias as a denomination, church name or family history. As a man who has been hanging on every word of this thread, willing to be convinced by the better argument, I must admit that I don’t find your views more reliable. I have no fear of changing my views as long as I would have a “leg to stand on,” and as politely as possible and with respect for your intellect and hours of study, with your views I WOULD have a leg to stand on, but not the stronger of the two. I’m glad there are people such as yourself that are interested in in-depth Bible study, but I’ve discovered that the majority of Christian people are like me- simple. And while threads like this are being dotted with masterful diatribes such as those here, the rest of us read God’s word and conclude, “It means what it says, says what it means,” completely unaware of the endless debates about this doctrine or that. In any case, this is a great thread. I’ve said enough. God bless you, and merry Christmas.
Tom
I do hope, as Tom has expressed above (I think), that neither side in this debate will “demonize” the other. We can charitably assume the best of the circumstances that led to this thread. Confusion and ignorance abound in many discussions of Calvinism, that is for sure.
I also hope that as the arguments pro and con have been compiled here, that observers such as Tom will see that both sides are attempting to hold to the Bible. Neither side doesn’t care what the words of the text say. Both sides want to let their doctrine come from the text. Both sides can’t be right, so one is wrong. But the wrong party is not treating the Word of God with contempt. That much should be clear.
Thus, we should agree to disagree, and move on. Our points have been made, and as Tom has pointed out, hundreds of Christians couldn’t care less about this debate, and others are unaware of it. Let us delight in the fact that Jesus has borne our iniquities! Let us delight in the glorious truths we all hold in common–that Jesus came into the world to save sinners!
Alright, I’m back. I am watching this thread when I return from a day of work. First, JT, you asked me to show a translation that agreed with me. Each of these and many more say “every,” the broadly inclusive of HALOT and TWOT, and not the individual “each.” The KJV has been the Bible for God’s churches, English speaking people, guided by the Holy Spirit, for 400 years, and it says “every.”
American Standard Version—All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
The Bible in Basic English—We all went wandering like sheep; going every one of us after his desire; and the Lord put on him the punishment of us all.
Geneva Bible—All we like sheepe haue gone astraye: wee haue turned euery one to his owne way, and the Lord hath layed vpon him the iniquitie of vs all.
King James Version—All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
New King James—All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
The Webster Bible—All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
And More. All of these “translations” say “every one,” and we know from the Hebrew, “every man.” The word “ish” is the word for “man.” If God wanted to make it “Israel,” he could have. Notice Bob in his quote of TWOT dismissed this line: “It also functions in a broadly inclusive sense meaning ‘whoever’ (Lev 15:5).” That is the sense of universality; I just used a single word to describe “broadly inclusive.” HALOT says “every man, whoever he may be.”
What Jeff says is correct. When you get a unique word added, like “all,” it sets apart the text. As well, we get “ish”, “man,” which hasn’t been used in the near context. When “ish” is used in the section at large, it is including more than just the Jews. See Isaiah 52:14–“As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.” It is not Jeff or I “setting this apart” or “ripping this out of its context,” but the author setting it apart in this way with the use of these words. 53 says “we” “we” “we” and then suddenly “all we.” You ask: “Why ‘all’ here, when it has been just ‘we’ before this?”
The problem you run into JT and Bob is that you don’t have a verse that teaches limited atonement. Again, I gave you the example of Paul in Galatians 2:20 and you said nothing about that. We don’t argue for atonement being limited to Paul from that verse. We have verse that show atonement to be unlimited. We have none that specifically state limits to atonement. All we need are verses that show it is universal and we know that it is universal.
I appreciate the admission of error Bob, but you didn’t already say that it was an error; you said: “If that “mannish” idea is wrong so be it.” That is not an admission of error.
Nobody is saying that “ish” could not be “each one” in certain contexts, just that, Bob, the translations, which you guys say are so important to look at, do not say “each,” but “every.” You are right to question the liberal Word Biblical Commentary. The translators saw it as “broadly inclusive.” The examples you gave help prove unlimited atonement, every man of the group, a group clearly established in the context, and so not just believing Judah but unbelieving Judah. Isaiah wasn’t just written to believing Judah, but to Judah, which was at that time mainly unbelieving (see Isaiah 1). Look back in 53:1—he includes those who wouldn’t even believe this message. Look at v. 3. The Jews, we, esteemed Him not. So Jesus bore the griefs of those who esteemed him not (v. 4a). That’s what he is saying. Instead of believing in Him, we esteemed Him as smitten of and punished by God (v. 4b). That doesn’t sound like all saved people that He was dying for.
Albert Barnes writes about v. 6: “This language is that which naturally expresses the idea that he suffered for all people. It is universal in its nature, and naturally conveys the idea that there was no limitation in respect to the number of those for whom he died.” Even Calvin himself says about the beginning of v. 6: “We see that here none are excepted, for the Prophet includes “all.” The whole human race would have perished, if Christ had not brought relief. He does not even except the Jews, whose hearts were puffed up with a false opinion of their own superiority, but condemns them indiscriminately, along with others, to destruction.”
Pastor Brandenburg,
What JT is getting at in asking for a translation that backs you up, is your peculiar use of ‘ish. You are claiming that the use of that word indicates automatically every man in the whole world—at least this is how I am understanding you. You are also claiming it makes a point because it is a word for “man” which changes the referent from the prior and following context.
I do not see the grammar supporting this. TWOT stresses that “frequently” the word will individualize things. That is what I see happening in this verse. The first phrase of the verse speaks in universal terms. The next phrase speaks particularly of all, every, or each of the group mentioned in the first phrase. The group sins collectively and each one in the group sins particularly or individually.
The second phrase of the verse even provides its own context: “we have turned every one to his own way”. The “every one” is clearly connected to the “we”. So HALOT’s “every many, whoever he may be” is delimited by the context. Whichever every man of the group designated “we”.
The examples I gave above show the word ‘ish being used (and translated “every” often) in a delimiting, individualizing way. It stresses each one or every one of a group. Consider again the Is. 36:16 quote, where “every one” refers only to every one of the people of Judah, clearly not all people everywhere.
The point in this verse which could be argued to support unlimited atonement would be the “all we”. And I admit I can see how one could understand that in an absolutely universal sense. I think it is stretching it to say the “every one” points to this universality. I have not read any commentary which understands the word ‘ish to be pointing to a universality or making a point through the word being one of the Hebrew words for “man”. The commentaries which interpret the verse to refer to all people everywhere, do not use the second phrase to make that point. Several commentaries I looked at including Calvin (more on him later), the Pulpit Commentary, Spurgeon (from his Morning and Evening–Evening 4/3) among others specifically state the first phrase of the verse speaks collectively, while the second phrase speaks individually.
The Pulpit Commentary states the case well: “All we like sheep have gone astray. ‘All we’ means either the whole nation of Israel, which ‘went astray’ in the wilderness of sin (Psalm 107:4; 119:176; Ezekiel 34:6), or else the whole race of mankind, which had wandered from the right path, and needed atonement and redemption even mere than Israel itself We have turned every one to his own way. Collectively and individually, the whole world had sinned.”
The debate should really focus on whether “all we” means the whole nation of Israel or all of mankind individually. Other commentaries take the passage as referring to the remnant of believing Israel. Many of the contextual arguments cited earlier in this discussion, as well as the NT definition of Israel, could be depended upon to argue that the passage is referring to the remnant.
So at this point, I think the argument regarding ‘ish is fruitless. I don’t buy the arguments given, and I don’t think it really bears on the interpretation of the passage. What matters is the “all we”. I can think of several ways in which adding an all to we, does not change the group of people referred to. “We want you to leave” spoken by the team captain. “Hey, we all want you to leave!” Stressing that the entire team really does want the other guy to leave.
The understanding above plus the contextual arguments from previous posts, should make it clear that Calvinists have a way to understand Is. 53:6 which does not ignore or twist the verse.
But what about Calvin? From his comments on Is. 53:6 and also on vs. 12, I would admit it appears he did not hold to a rigid “limited atonement” view as do most Calvinists today. I won’t dispute that point. Further, Barnes (also cited by you above) is a 4 point Calvinist, I believe. These quotes really prove an important point. There are many Calvinists both today, and in years past, who do not hold to a “limited atonement” view. Which is to say that Calvinism does not stand or fall on this one point. As you previously mentioned, most 5 point Calvinists will still admit that there are many unlimited aspects to Christ’s atonement. So this point should put the whole debate here in perspective.
Finally, while the comments are supposed to stick to Is. 53:6, you keep stating we have no verse for limited atonement. Let me just reference a few from which we find this teaching. Jesus specifies that he lays down his life “for his sheep” (John 10:11, 15) and then later in the chapter says “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock” (10:26). Acts 20:28 says Jesus purchased the church of God with his own blood. Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that Christ “loved…and gave himself up for [the church]”. Certainly Jesus did not die for the non-sheep and non-church in the same way. He couldn’t have purchased the church and also the non-church with His blood, and He certainly doesn’t love everyone else the same way He loves His bride—the church. It is these kind of statements of “intent” which lead to the doctrine of limited atonement. Again I encourage anyone to check out some of the articles I linked to in my first post above, which cite many other reasons for believing in limited atonement.
Tom,
I appreciate everything you have said but I never intended to communicate that this thread was started in any type of hostile way. In fact, I think the way the thread was started and has been conducted has been Christ-honoring.
My problem is with the man who initially said it was obvious that Isaiah 53:6 “shows that the iniquities of all were laid upon Christ.” This statement told his audience (whether one or more) since it was so obvious that any other view than his is obviously non-biblical.
I agree with you that most people read scripture and believe it says what it means and it means what it says. Applying that standard to this discussion Isaiah 53:6 does not say “that the iniquities of all were laid upon Christ.” That is misquoting scripture. It says “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
There is a difference in those two statements. It is the iniquities of “us all” not just “all” that were laid on Christ. So then the original statement is inaccurate. The more biblically correct statement is that this verse obviously shows that the iniquities of “us all” were laid on Christ.
At that point the question is where this thread comes in to ask who is “us all”. One side believes the verse stands out from the text while the other side thinks it fits neatly into the rest of the chapter. I believe that each side has argued their case passionately without getting personal. I have greatly enjoyed it.
Tom you seem to think that it is not an easy thing to know what Calvinists think. It is true it would not be an easy thing to know what someone thinks about a particular topic if they haven’t made it known before hand. I feel confident in saying that there is plenty of written and cyberspace material of Calvinists to insure that people will know what we think and why, IF they want to know. All it takes is a little research.
The point of my last post was that if the statement that began this post was made by a teacher then he needs to be admonished. Especially, if it was made in front of a body of believers. I think that teacher should also go back in front of that same audience and correct his statement. We as teachers are held to a higher standard that will be applied to us by God. We need to be very careful in our teachings that we not bear false witness against another brother in Christ.
If my last post has come across as to anyone as thinking that this thread was hostile let me assure you I don’t. Now, I do believe that hostility can arise when one side misrepresents the other side or labels the other side’s beliefs as “obviously” unbiblical.
Tom, Thank you for your post.
Kent,
You are coming close to labeling our beliefs as having no basis in scripture when you say “The problem you run into JT and Bob is that you don’t have a verse that teaches limited atonement.”
Are you a teacher? You should know that there are many verses on which we can base that opinion. In Isaiah 53 alone there are some:
Verses 4-5 – Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Verse 8 …for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Verse 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Verse 12 – …and he bare the sin of many,….
I would caution you in your enthusiasm to temper your language. You may disagree with our conclusions from these verses and the verses that FR Bob gave but you cannot say that there are no verses on which to base our beliefs.
One of the comforting things in our belief is that it provides no comfort to the universalist.
As far as Galatians 2:20 is concerned I would say that it appears to me to be a personal testimony as opposed to a statement of general theology. All saved people have the same testimony. Our point is that no lost person has that testimony. If consistent you would have to say that any person who has ever lived can say the same thing as Paul. I am not comfortable with that idea.
One last thing, it is historically inaccurate to say that “[t]he KJV has been the Bible for God’s churches, English speaking people, guided by the Holy Spirit, for 400 years….” What Bible was on the Mayflower? The Geneva Bible. What was the Bible of the Puritans? The Geneva Bible What Bible dominated the colonies? The Geneva Bible. Think about it. Do you actually think that the colonies fighting against England would have had the version of the Anglican Church that was authorized by the King of England on their tables?
As a teacher you should know these things.
This “ish” getting clearer, I hope.
I still don’t see a verse that actually limits atonement. Saying that he died for me doesn’t limit atonement. The type of argument Calvinists use is seen in this sentence JT: “If consistent you would have to say that any person who has ever lived can say the same thing as Paul. I am not comfortable with that idea.” Is this the “comfort argument?” Cbrist died for “many” isn’t limiting atonement. Christ died for “the church” doesn’t limit atonement. Romans 5:6 says He died for the “ungodly.” 1 Timothy 2:6 says “he gave himself for all.” And then there is 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1. Lot’s of splainin to do. John 1:29, taketh away the sin of the world. Hebrews 2:9–taste death for every man. Died for His sheep doesn’t contradict died for everyone. Bob says, “He couldn’t have purchased the church and also the non-church with His blood.” Well, that He paid for the church does not exclude paying for the non-churched. That is a logical fallacy. I can pay for the meal of 50 people, but just because only 12 eat it doesn’t mean that the other 50 weren’t paid for. Yes, we as believers are unique recipients of His grace. That is not the point. He loves us more. Yes. That is not the point. By his stripes we are healed. Yes. No one is healed without his stripes. That is not the point. The point is that the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of both unbelievers and believers. I hear even you coming to that point, Bob. It started out a “remnant,” and now it is: “The debate should really focus on whether “all we” means the whole nation of Israel or all of mankind individually.” If the debate is fousing on one of those two, the debate is over, because then His atonement is not limited to only the saints.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I am only in Isaiah 32 in my series through the book, but I got some good work in for that future section.
Off the point of the thread, but to answer JT. We don’t consider the Massachusetts Bay Colony to represent Christ’s churches. They were state church people. Geneva Bible people kicked Baptists out of their colony. I ask: “What did the Baptists use?” They used the King James Version. On top of that, the Geneva Bible says the same thing on Isaiah 53:6 as the KJV.
Kent,
I have a couple questions for you and I would like serious answers. They are not intended as rhetorical in nature. They are asked with the intention of receiving serious answers from a teacher in Christ’s church.
Do you really believe that everyone in hell has the same testimony as Paul in Galatians 2:20? “I died with Christ.”
It appears that we agree that the atonement was a payment by God the Son to God the Father. So my question is would the restaurant owner (God) be just in accepting money for 50 people (from Jesus) and only serving 12?
Have you officially changed you assertion from your previous post when you said “[t]he KJV has been the Bible for God’s churches, English speaking people….” to “[t]he KJV has been the Bible for Baptist churches, English speaking people….” or are you asserting that only Baptist churches qualify as God’s churches?
Were the people on the Mayflower not a part of God’s Church?
Were they even Christians?
Just a little history: Legitimate church historians (specifically excluding J.M. Carroll) tells us that Baptists first appeared in the early 1600 which was PRIOR to the KJV. What Bible did they use during the early years? When did the KJV become the dominant Bible of Baptists? I can’t imagine it was soon after it came out considering it was done for King James I who was perxecuting them and was in charge of the Anglican (very Romish) Church.
I trust you have researched this before making such an assertion being that you are a teacher in God’s church and knowing that you will be held to a higher standard. (James 3:1) Remember, every idle word…. (Matthew 12:36)
JT,
I can answer your question, but the problem, as it relates to this thread, is that it won’t prove anything regarding limited atonement. Paul was crucified with Christ, but people in Hell were not. That doesn’t mean that Christ didn’t die for them, however. And I do think that part of the punishment of hell will be the torment of knowing He did die for them and that they rejected that (I will admit that this last sentence would be based on inferences of Scripture). Punishment in Hell is worse for the ones who reject the most revelation (that is explicitly taught in Scripture). Paul, however, could not himself have been crucified (perfect tense) with Christ if Christ had not died for him. You should consider that J. T.
In a study of ekklesia in its 118 usages, at no time does one see anything inconsistent with the actual meaning of the word, “assembly.” Christ’s assemblies are those having NT distinctives. There have always been churches like that since Christ and they became known as Baptists. I don’t believe the state church represents New Testament churches. Actually, JT, if you read Armitage, J.T. Christian, Orchard, or a number of other historians, including Mosheim, the Lutheran historian, will say that Baptists are of ancient origin. Cardinal Hosius, a member of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1560, says: “If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptist since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people.” In 1819, Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in Gronigen, and the Rev. J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of the Netherlands, wrote this: “[T]he Baptists may be considered as the only Christian society which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient.” God’s churches and Baptist churches historically I see as the same.
The church and the family of God and the kingdom of God are not all the same thing, Scripturally.
I think it is highly possible that the Separatists (not the Strangers, which outnumbered them) on the Mayflower were converted.
Thanks JT for your interaction.
This will be my final comment on this thread!
I admit the verse could be interpreted as referring to all mankind due to the “all”.
However, at this point, I disagree with that conclusion. In light of the immediate context, and the fact that the verse is part of a section that is Hebrew poetry, I see it better to view the “all” as pointing to “all” of the “we” which in context seems to clearly be those who have admitted their sin and who have been healed or will be healed by Christ’s stripes—those who will be justified. It is them, the believing remnant (and by implication all believers of all time) who are the ones whose sins have been laid on Jesus.
And so Pastor Jeff Voegtlin’s point for the post seems achieved. Calvinists have given a credible defense for their limited atonement view as it relates to this verse. Further, some non-Calvinists have also argued for an opposing point of view. Both viewpoints have been ably defended and expressed.
Now, as in the last few comments above, the discussion must naturally go to other passages of Scripture for a discussion of limited atonement. But that is not what this thread is for, most likely. This all goes to show that the debate over limited atonement is not won or lost based on this verse. Several other passages are more integral to the doctrine of definite atonement or particular redemption than this one.
Thanks for the opportunity to answer a question and to defend a position on this verse. I am thankful the discussion has been level-headed and forthright. I pray God continues to lead us all into the truth, and causes us all to appreciate the substitutionary death of Christ for us more.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Kent,
I have enjoyed the exchange up until your last couple of posts. I am bound by scripture (Galatians 6:1) to again admonish you to be careful about overstating the case for whatever topic you are discussing. You are a teacher and you will be held to a higher standard.
There are so many things to say about your last post but they would be outside the purpose of this thread.
I will close with a couple things:
(1) You seem to miss what we mean when we enter a discussion about “limited atonement”. The focus is on what was accomplished. What was accomplished was the saving of people from every tribe, tongue and nation, a number which no man can number and which are more than the stars in the heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore as promised to Abraham.
(2) I think it is incredibly unchaitable and, more importantly, unbiblical on your part to say that any denomination or christian outside the Baptist church is not in God’s church. This would be a belief that you would have to admit is not even inferred in scripture.
In spite of that I still let you know that you and your ministry are in my prayers but I somehow doubt you are praying that my Presbyterian ministry succeeds. That is a sad way for this to end.
Blessings,
JT
Bob,
I’m glad you can admit “all” can mean “all men” here because it is tough when Calvinists out-Calvin Calvin himself.
JT,
You can go to the ‘feelings-hurt’ defense, because my feelings won’t be hurt. If I were to be hurt, I would be pouting over not existing before 1600. I would be pouting about having illegitimate history. Etc. Etc. A pout-fest. But let’s try to keep our chins up while we live in the greatest country on earth. Yes, New Testament churches are the only churches. So churches with NT distinctives are not in the line of churches. We don’t get to be a non-church and call ourselves a church. Be well, JT.
I am going to close the comments on this thread. I believe the “limited” scope of my question has been answered in a “definite” way with each “particular” side ably defending their views. 🙂
I’m sure there will be more “Calvinist Questions” in the future. BTW, if you ever want to boost your blog traffic, ask a “Calvinist Question!”