Tasted Death for every Man !

[brightfame52]

The writer of Hebrews wrote Heb 2:9

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Now honestly, did the writer write here that Christ tasted death for all mankind without exception here ? Nope he did not. In the original man isnt in the verse:

τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου

Man was added by the translators. The word pas can refer to all the whole, the sum total of all the group intended. Context is important in determining the group that the writer has in mind. Lets look at the very next verse 10

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Bingo, its the many sons that He suffered and died for, or tasted death for, The word many polys:

many, much, large, many, numerous, great

He tasted death for many Sons, a great number of them, everyone of them. This is important,, because later in the same epistle the writer uses the adjective many again to denote who He tasted death for Heb 9:28

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

See to taste death back in Heb 2:9 is the exact same thing as " to bear the sins of many;" again, the many Sons of vs 10, everyone of the sons is who He tasted death for, not all of mankind without exception.

See Isa 53:11

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.

 

[Dizerner]

He stood in the place of Adam, he has infinite worth, he bought the entire field for the treasure within it.

No person that ever lived can say "Christ did not die for me."

 

[brightfame52]

He stood in the place of Adam, he has infinite worth, he bought the entire field for the treasure within it.

No person that ever lived can say "Christ did not die for me."

So you think its possible for Christ to die for someone and it doesnt communicate spiritual life to them?

 

[Dizerner]

So you think its possible for Christ to die for someone and it doesnt communicate spiritual life to them?

Yeah.

People can say "no" to God.

 

[brightfame52]

Yeah.

People can say "no" to God.

Thats a very low opinion of the saving death of Christ. His Death gives life to the world of His Sheep Jn 6:33

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

 

[Kampioen]

Thats a very low opinion of the saving death of Christ. His Death gives life to the world of His Sheep Jn 6:33

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

The literal manna from heaven gave life for all too but not for those who abused it. They apparently had a low opinion of it too, or maybe even an overly high opinion since they thought they could get away with abusing it.

Thus the Bread of life non-particularly giving life to all despite not for those who reject it is not a low opinion of God's truth.

 

[brightfame52]

The literal manna from heaven gave life for all too but not for those who abused it. They apparently had a low opinion of it too, or maybe even an overly high opinion since they thought they could get away with abusing it.

Thus the Bread of life non-particularly giving life to all despite not for those who reject it is not a low opinion of God's truth.

Jesus gives life through His Death. Dead folk cant abuse/prevent being resurrected from the dead.

Jn 6:33

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Could dead Lazarus in Jn 11 abuse or prevented Christ from giving him life from the dead ?

 

[Kampioen]

Jesus gives life through His Death. Dead folk cant abuse/prevent being resurrected from the dead.

Jn 6:33

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Could dead Lazarus in Jn 11 abuse or prevented Christ from giving him life from the dead ?

Lazarus was Jesus' close friend. So it was conditional in some way to when he was alive. And the grief of others likely influenced Him. But Lazarus was just raised to the way he was, not suddenly saved from not.

The manna from heaven in Moses' day was conditional to proper handling, despite that it was said to give life. Same with Jesus.

You have no proof that spiritual life is unconditional.

 

[Dizerner]

Lazarus still had free will, it's a pointless argument.

 

[brightfame52]

@Kampioen

Lazarus was Jesus' close friend.

So is everyone He loved and died for, His church Eph 5:25

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Jn 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Thats why His death gives them life from the dead

 

[brightfame52]

Lazarus still had free will, it's a pointless argument.

lol, thats a delusion, he was dead

 

[Dizerner]

When he was resurrected God didn't zap away his free will.

According to the distorted lies of Calvinism, against the Bible, man never has free will to begin with anyway.

 

[Kampioen]

@Kampioen

So is everyone He loved and died for, His church Eph 5:25

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Jn 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Thats why His death gives them life from the dead

Just because it says He died for the church doesn't mean there weren't others that He didn't die for. The church could be representative of the comers even though He died for all. Even the Amyraldian Calvinists believe that.

A fireman could risk his life for all but only call those he manages to save as his group.

Romans 5:18 (KJV) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Thus you don't have proof of limited atonement.

 

[brightfame52]

Heb 2:10 makes it clear who the everyone or every man is in Heb 2:9 for whom Christ tasted death for. Its for every son that He suffered and died for, constituting Him the Captain of their Salvation which brings them to Glory:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings/unto death

Notice it specifies their Salvation ! So He tasted death or suffered for their Salvation. Also this taste of death for them ensures their being brought to Glory. 2

 

[brightfame52]

@Kampioen

Just because it says He died for the church doesn't mean there weren't others that He didn't die for.

Thats exactly what it means!

 

[Kampioen]

Just because it says He died for the church doesn't mean there weren't others that He didn't die for.

@Kampioen

Thats exactly what it means!

Thus you are saying Christ died for others than just the church. I agree.

 

[brightfame52]

Thus you are saying Christ died for others than just the church. I agree.

No Im not saying that

 

[civic]

No Im not saying that

you should be since its the biblical answer.

 

[brightfame52]

The Captain of our Salvation !

The every man in Heb 2:9 who Jesus tasted death for, are the same by His taste of death in Vs 10 became to them and them only, the Captain of their Salvation !

Heb 2:9-10

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings[His Death].

To be the Captain of their Salvation also describes the fact that He was and is 100% responsible for their Salvation. God made it His responsibility to save them and consequently bring them to Glory.

This coincides with Jesus words in Jn 17:2

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

It also fulfills what Isaiah wrote Isa 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The government of the Salvation of His People is upon His shoulders !

This speaks of His Spiritual rule, prince hood. In fact that word Captain in Heb 2:10 also means Prince Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

So His tasting Death was for the Salvation of His People, you cant separate His Death from Salvation !

 

[civic]

This is from another thread on our forum that I reposted here so we can all see the differences between Soteriology of determinists and non determinists.​

​

Comparing Arminian and Calvinist Soteriological Frameworks​

The following will compare the soteriology of Arminianism with Calvinism. Calvinism soteriology is most often associated with the acronym TULIP while Arminian soteriology does not have a universally accepted acronym.

Total Depravity​

This is the one point that both agree on. As a consequence of the fall, mankind is totally depraved. This does not mean he is as bad as he can possibly be. But it does mean that he is incapable, in his own efforts, of coming to God for salvation. Apart from the working of God’s grace, there can be no salvation.

Election​

Arminian soteriology holds to a conditional election. God elects, or chooses, all of those who respond in faith to his gift of salvation. We are able to respond, not because of something innately in us, but because of the enabling of the Holy Spirit via prevenient grace. The logical progression of salvation starts with the working of the Holy Spirit, enabling faith; a human response to the offer of salvation; and then regeneration.


Calvinist soteriology holds to what they call an unconditional election. That God sovereignly chooses some for salvation, independently of anything that the one chosen may believe or do. The logical ordering in salvation starts with God choosing those who will be saved; then regenerating and granting faith to the chosen, and then faith is exercised by the chosen and regenerated.

Atonement​

Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was for all people, although it is effective only for those who believe. This is not universalism. While the atonement was for all, only those who believe receive its benefit.


Calvinism, on the other hand, generally holds to limited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was only for the elect. Atonement is only available for those God has foreordained to salvation. Some Calvinists reject this and accept unlimited atonement. This is also the point at which Lutherans disagree with Calvinists, rejecting limited atonement.

Resistibility of Grace​

Arminian soteriology argues that the prevenient grace of God that is given to the unbeliever enables faith. Salvation is then offered as a gift that may either be accepted or rejected. The work of the Holy Spirit is resistible.


In contrast, Calvinism holds to irresistible grace. The Holy Spirit works in the life of the elect to bring them into a relationship with Christ. This working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible, all of the foreordained will come to faith.

Persistence of Salvation​

This is the point that divides Arminians. We all believe that those who persist in their faith will be saved in the end. Some believe that all true believers will persist. Others accept the possibility that true believers have the ability to turn their backs on the grace of God. And, as a result, lose their salvation.

The Sovereignty of God​

As you can see, there are some significant differences in how John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, and their respective followers, view the doctrine of salvation. But more significant than these differences is how they view the character of God. While both view God as sovereign, they understand the sovereignty of God in different ways. For the Calvinist, sovereignty implies complete and total control of everything that happens in the creation. If anyone is able to perform some action or make some decision that is not at God’s direction, then God is not sovereign.


This issue of this understanding of God’s sovereignty is what led Jacob Arminius to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. He saw divine determinism (God determines everything) as making God the author of sin. And that, to him, removed any real responsibility for sin from humanity. If a person can only act in accordance with God’s decrees, then when they sin it is a result of God’s decree; it is what God wanted them to do. For Arminius, God was sovereign over all of his creation. But that sovereignty included God’s permissive will, allowing humanity to act at odds with God’s desired will. But even as God allows evil, he uses it to accomplish his purpose. Our human choices are never unexpected or allowed to interfere with God’s purpose in creation.

The Doctrine of Predestination​

The other issue Arminius had with the Calvinism of his day is in their related doctrine of predestination. Calvin modeled his doctrine of predestination after Augustine. God has chosen some to salvation prior to creation, irrespective of anything the individual might be or do. God seemingly arbitrarily chooses some to salvation. Some Calvinists will also argue that God has specifically chosen the rest of humanity to an eternity in hell. Others argue against that double predestination, but the result is the same. If you are not among the chosen, you are among the damned. To Arminius, this pictured God as a monster; creating some humans with no actual hope of escaping from the fires of hell.


Instead, Arminius, appealing to the Scripture as well as the early church fathers, argued that God loves all of humanity. An that he enables everyone to believe. Those that he foreknows will respond in faith he elects, while those who do not are condemned to damnation. But that condemnation is a result of a rejection of God’s grace, not an arbitrary action on God’s part. The Calvinist will argue that my choice to accept God’s offer of grace is an action on my part. Thus making salvation at least partly based on my own efforts. But Arminius responded that a free gift received, is still a free gift. My accepting the gift does not in any way constitute an earning of that gift on my part.

Free Will​

Calvinists accuse Arminians of focusing on human free will, although they also claim to accept it after a fashion. But Arminius’ use of human free will was not to elevate humanity. Rather it was to make them responsible for their own sin, rather than making God responsible for it. Salvation is no less a work of God because I have the ability to accept or reject it.

hope this helps !!!!