Piper's view of John 12:32 "shall be drawing all to Myself"

[Alex_Smith]

A friend emailed me some points about a sermon where John Piper comments on John 12:32. Given I spent a couple of hours writing a response to him, I thought I might as well put it here too, to see what others think…

3. God glorifies himself by drawing all of his sheep to Jesus.
John 12:32, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Immediately I disagree with Piper because the passage in Greek (see scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh12.pdf) simply says “all”, not “all people”, not “all kinds of people”, not “all His sheep”.

This might mean that the death of Christ, when preached with clarity has a general drawing effect on all people.

Interpreting “drawing” as “general drawing effect” would contradict the doctrine of Irresistible Grace (i.e. I believe those who God draws will come to Him).

That is the way it seems to be usually taken or that it draws all kinds of people.

See previous two comments.

I doubt that it means that.

Cool

I think it means that when Christ died —when he was lifted up on the cross — he actually secured — obtained, guaranteed — the home-coming of his sheep, the ingathering of his children.

Again on what grounds does Piper limit “all” to “His sheep”, unless of course he thinks everyone will be His sheep eventually, in which case he wouldn’t be limiting “all”?

In other words his death not only makes it possible to offer salvation freely and truly to everyone, so that “whoever believes on him might have eternal life” (John 3:16), but his death also secures with certainty the bringing in of all his sheep (John 10:16), the ingathering of “the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:52).

Amen! Note the passages don’t say the believing must occur before death.

Here are the reasons I think this is what Jesus means.

1. The word “people” is not a necessary part of the Greek word for “all” in verse 32. It simply says, “When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself.” I am suggesting it is all his sheep, all his children, all the elect.

We agree that the Greek is simply “all” & rejects reducing it to “all [kinds of people]”, however instead he confusingly reduces it to “all [His sheep]”. I would say there’s nothing in the context to justify reducing “all”, therefore it means “everyone” or “everything” (similar to Rom 11:36 “For from Him and through Him and TO Him are all things. TO Him be glory forever. Amen.”)

2. The word “draw” is used in John 6:44, where Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” If the sense is similar it’s a real effective drawing. It’s not an attempt to draw which fails. It’s a successful bringing to Christ.

We agree that it’s only when God draws someone that they can accept God’s offer. Where we disagree is that he thinks a true offer doesn’t include God’s drawing, whereas I think it does, otherwise God is offering something to people who can’t accept it (because He has withheld His Spirit from them)… it’s like passing a deaf man the phone, but not giving them their hearing aid so that they can hear the caller.

3. This is what Jesus said he would do for his sheep in John 10:16 when he dies for them: “I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also.” His death has a certain effect on his sheep. They come. All of them.

Again no where does the Bible say everyone can’t become sheep, in fact I would say Jesus mentioning “other sheep” supports the idea that “the sheep” isn’t a static sized group.

4. The death of Jesus does not draw all people this way. Judas, for example, knows the cross and the Savior, and is not drawn by the lifting up of Christ. He rejects Christ and perishes. In fact it’s Judas’ unbelief that is in view in John 6:65 when Jesus says, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

We agree that the death of Jesus does not draw all people in this lifetime. However, unlike Piper, I think effects of the cross are so powerful they extend into the ages to come. I think Christ’s ascension initiated even Judas’ drawing, it’s just that his drawing includes God’s discipline/chastisement (perishing for awhile) in the initial coming ages, not just this age (like us).

5. Jesus uses the term “all” for his elect the way he does here when he says, “When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself.” For example, John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37). And John 17:2, the Son gives “eternal life to all whom you have given him” (John 17:2). This is the “all” of John 12:32, “When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all — all whom you have given to me, all my sheep — to myself.”

The elect are NOT mentioned in either John 6:37 or John 17:2, in fact if we look closely at the later verse, “since You have given Him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom You have given Him.” the close proximity of the two “all"s” suggests they have the same scope (I assume we all agree Jesus has authority over everyone, indeed everything!)… Again I’m not saying this implies everyone comes to Jesus is this lifetime, but that doesn’t imply they are not coming. Think about your average Christian, usually their coming to Christ isn’t simple it offer & acceptance - end of story. No usually it’s more complex than that, people often accept, then reject, then accept, etc. None of this should worry us because it doesn’t worry God because He knows this is part of dealing with people, it’s also part of the reason He doesn’t set a deadline.

Piper & I agree that God offers salvation to everyone & that only the elect say yes in this lifetime. Where we disagree is that he thinks a “No” means God retracts His offer, whereas I think God doesn’t ever change His mind/offer.

Therefore, God multiplies the ways he gets glory in the death of his Son. He glorifies himself in the death of Christ not only by making salvation available to all, so that whoever believes may have eternal life (John 3:16), but also by securing with absolute certainty the ingathering of all those whom he has appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48) — all his own, all the sheep, all the children of God, all the elect who were chosen in Jesus before the foundation of the world. “When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all of them to myself.” And my Father will get great glory for this triumphant salvation.

Let’s say that even though Christ’s death made salvation available to all, but no one believed… would that glorify God?? Hopefully you’ll agree that it wouldn’t - I’d be inclined to say it would actually do the opposite! Anyway, my point is that each person who believes is a victory over evil that glorifies God. Therefore the more who believe the more God is glorified (& given how important God’s glory is, I don’t think God will limit His glory).

[corpselight]

he’s using Arminian terminology as if humans have a choice in their election or reprobation, as you point out.
lots of tapdancing around from the piper.

[Cole]

The word ALL can mean what Piper says it does. From the New Testament Greek Lexicon:

pas

1. individually
   a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2. collectively
   a)some of all types

… “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.“Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God,little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …

It’s my belief that God has a remnant chosen in this lifetime who are saved by grace. The secondfruits will suffer under God’s holy justice in the next life as they are corrected and purified. Christ died for His chosen ones.

[JasonPratt]

Michael,

It’s context that determines what the extent of “all” means; and the context here definitely means “all sinners”, which is why translators (including JP’s own reference choice) typically render it “all men” (if they don’t really think it means all sinners including rebel angels) or “all people” (if they’re going for gender inclusive context and are worried someone somewhere will think “men” means all males instead of all humankind.)

[JeffA]

And that’s without the whole ‘draw’ meaning ‘drag’ debate

[JasonPratt]

And that’s without the whole ‘draw’ meaning ‘drag’ debate

Which JP himself basically affirms. He doesn’t specifically mention it means “drag”, but that’s exactly how he treats it, per typical Calv apologetics.

The only way he can get around this amounting to universalism is to utterly read a partial exclusion into “all” there. But as Alex well-noted, JP’s grounds for doing so are slipshod at best and even outright self-refuting on occasion.

[Cole]

Jason,

The context isn’t every single individual sinner. But sinners from all sorts of classes and races and nationalities. Christ died so that He could gather into one the children of God scattered abroad:

He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad. - John 11:51-52

You are taking scripture out of it’s context and twisting it.

Whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me yet you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6

Christ died for His sheep. Not the goats:

I am the good shepherd. The good Shephered lays down His life for the sheep. John 10:11

The sacrifice is for the sheep. It is for those whom the Father has given to Him. The children of God scattered abroad. The first-fruits. The second-fruits are purified under God’s Holy Justice in the lake of fire.

[JaelSister]

Jason,

The context isn’t every single individual sinner. But sinners from all sorts of classes and races and nationalities. Christ died so that He could gather into one the children of God scattered abroad:

He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad. - John 11:51-52

You are taking scripture out of it’s context and twisting it.

Whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me yet you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6

Christ died for His sheep. Not the goats:

I am the good shepherd. The good Shephered lays down His life for the sheep. John 10:11

The sacrifice is for the sheep. It is for those whom the Father has given to Him. The children of God scattered abroad. The first-fruits. The second-fruits are purified under God’s Holy Justice in the lake of fire.

Michael, it’s been really good to have you here and be able to see a brother’s theological transformation. But I would say that it’s not really fair to take an obviously sincere, fair spirited brother in Christ and say he’s twisting scripture. Particularly when he blatantly isn’t.

The context in John 12:32 is very clearly refering to an everything type of all. You referencing the previous chapter regarding Christ coming for Gentiles as well, doesn’t change that. It is two different contexts within John. And we do have to allow John to speak about different topics and contexts within his own gospel.

Besides, I thought you were universalist now? Have you changed again and I miser it? ( sorry if I had). But by your post, if you are universalist, if christ died just for the sheep, how are the goats saved in the ages to come? If Christ didn’t die for them, then they are not being saved by His death and resurrection. Which implies there are other ways to be saved. Such as suffering their own punishments etc. Which is surely unbiblical. Most Unis I know believe all are saved through christ’s death. Just not all in this age. In which case, Christ did die for all, sheep and goats. It is just not all realised yet. Much as before I was saved, Christ had died for me already. Don’t forget, while we were still in sin, Christ died for us.

Maybe I misunderstand you. I probably have. But you don’t seem to have thought through the logical conclusion of your above statements

Blessings!

[JasonPratt]

You are taking scripture out of it’s context and twisting it.

That’s a very serious charge. Especially considering that I didn’t go into detail about what my grounds for saying so were, so you really don’t have enough evidence to gauge whether I am intentionally trying to deceive myself and/or other people on the topic.

On the other hand, I myself specifically said that context is what determines what the scope of “all” is for this example. Which means I have contexts in mind. So even if I am wrong about what the contexts imply, I am not simply taking the scripture out of its context.

If I indicate I am using math to reach an answer, you may attempt to explain why my math must be wrong (which might be possible to do even if you haven’t seen much of my math yet); but to charge me with refusing to use math at all in order to make the answer come out to be whatever I want is unjustified.

You should be less hasty about making such charges against people.

The context isn’t every single individual sinner. But sinners from all sorts of classes and races and nationalities. Christ died so that He could gather into one the children of God scattered abroad:

He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad. - John 11:51-52

Citing this verse as evidence of a different context would work if the Gospel author actually said that Jesus would die not only for the nation of Israel (which by context has to be the whole nation not only elect sinners among the nation, or else there would be no point for the “not only but” comparison) but also for sinners from all sorts of classes and races and nationalities, too, yet not for all of them.

But the verse says no such thing. You’re reading that into the verse in order to cite that verse as data against the notion that Christ drags all persons toward Himself by being lifted up.

Whether you’re correct to read that interpretation into the verse is another question, but your citation of it doesn’t work unless you do so.

Since the reference (so far as it goes) is to “the nation” without further qualifier, and so (unless a qualifier for “the nation” is read in from somewhere else) indicates the whole nation of Israel per se, if “the children of God scattered abroad” means anything partially exclusive the phraseology (from comparison with other data, especially in the OT) would indicate the lost tribes of Israel in the diaspora, not merely the ones living in the nation at that time. But it might refer to the Gentiles as a whole being grafted into the promises of Israel, which also has strong scriptural support elsewhere.

The verse is not particularly detailed enough in itself to be sure one way or another. But insofar as it’s taken by itself (which I wouldn’t advise), its internal contexts cannot be talking about Jesus dying only for the elect and not for the non-elect (unless “the elect” includes the nation of Israel without qualification. Which most people talking about “the elect” would deny.)

Whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me yet you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6

You’re going far outside the contexts of the scene at hand (as in fact you were for your John 11 citation, too, even though it was much closer). That isn’t wrong to do for systematic theology, assuming it is being done validly, but that means the position is not being argued from the material of that scene itself (which runs from John 12:20-50, covering events on Thursday that the Synoptics did not, and having skipped over events up through Wednesday night that the Synoptics covered after the Triumphant Entry).

If the case cannot be made from local contexts it may be made from importing extended contexts, but then the local contexts should not be cited as though they themselves count as positive evidence for the case.

(As an aside: people who just ignore context in order to twist the scriptures, do not typically go out of their way to acknowledge that in principle their opponent might be doing correctly to import a context from some extended point elsewhere. As I routinely do. Including just now.)

Having said that: The Father gives the baby goats to the Son as well as the rest of the flock (since you reference GosMatt, too), which is exactly why the Son can raise the evil as well as the good in the final day. (Jesus says as much not long afterward in that same chapter: “Not even one can come toward Me if ever the Father, the One sending Me, should not be drawing him. Yet I shall be raising him in the final day.” (v.45) The first sentence (as Calvs are well aware) indicates that those whom the Father does not yet draw cannot be coming to Christ yet (not even the elect). But the second sentence would make no sense unless Jesus was affirming that He will raise such people anyway even if the Father is not yet drawing them to Christ. But Christ cannot raise anyone unless the Father gives them to Him (the Son would be in rebellion against the Father otherwise), and as you quoted from verse 37 everyone who is given to Christ by the Father shall be coming toward Him.

That means those whom Christ raises up in the final day who have not been drawn toward Him yet will be drawn toward Him sooner or later; which not incidentally also fits the prophecy quoted by Jesus immediately afterward in verse 45, “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God’.” That’s always a reference in the prophets to the final day after the coming of YHWH, when YHWH Himself will teach people who previously had been in rebellion against Him; in other words after the resurrection of the good and the evil. (Also before then, if there is a millennial kingdom of Christ on earth first.)

The distinction is not whether those who are given to the Son to be raised shall have eonian life and others not who haven’t been given to the Son. The distinction between who receives eonian life or not is whether someone “beholds the Son and believes into Him” (v.40).

Christ died for His sheep. Not the goats:

The baby goats are part of the flock of the Good Shepherd, too, in GosMatt 25.

And the term translated in English as “sheep” (including in GosMatt 25, and pretty much everywhere in GosJohn such as the verse you quoted) means “herd” generally, not “sheep” only unless there is some contrasting reason to think otherwise. So it does also refer to goats as well as sheep, and in practically every case Jesus might as validly be called “The Good Goatherd” herding His “goats” and going out after the 100th “goat” etc.

I am the good shepherd. The good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. John 10:11

(Also an extended context importation into John 12, by the way, not arguing from John 12.)

A {poimên} herds goats, too, as part of his {probatôn}, unless there’s some reason to think his {probatôn} are only sheep.

So: you not only have not even tried to demonstrate that I was wrong about what I said concerning the contexts of that scene in John 12 (because you didn’t discuss any of those contexts at all); your extended contextual references don’t establish I was wrong either. Much less that I was ignoring contexts in order to twist the scriptures around.

But, as long as we’re citing extended contexts instead of analyzing that scene in John 12…

The sacrifice is for the sheep. It is for those whom the Father has given to Him. The children of God scattered abroad. The first-fruits. The second-fruits are purified under God’s Holy Justice in the lake of fire.

…Col 1:19-20: “For in Him [the Firstborn out from among the dead] the entire fullness [of deity per Col 2:9] delights to dwell, and through Him to reconcile the-all to Him, making peace through the blood of His cross–through Him, whether things on the earth or things in the heavens.”

But, if you wish to discuss contexts of special election and diselection within that scene from John 12, I will volunteer verses 39-41, which are famously appealed to by Calvinists.

(http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/thisjustin.gif The fact that I am aware of those verses and freely volunteer them to you for discussion to try to make your case, should not be taken as evidence that I am just ignoring contexts in John 12 in order to twist the scriptures. )

[JasonPratt]

Cole,

Jael puts something I argued up there very succinctly (and thanks for that Jael ) : if Christ does not die for someone (much less if the Father doesn’t give them to Christ!), then those people are not going to be saved from their sins.

Or if they are, you had better be prepared to specify how some people are saved from their sins without being reconciled to God by the blood of His cross (much less without being given to the Son by the Father.)

Schisming between grace and justice, as though justice only means wrath (thus as though the Persons of God are never just toward one another, much less that God expects us to be just toward one another and toward Himself as the proper way of living), is not a good solution to how sinners are saved from their sins utterly apart from Christ (much moreso apart from His sacrifice to save sinners from sin).

[Cole]

Hey Jason,

I see what you are saying about Christ’s sacrifice. As I was reading your response and your false accusations against John Piper a scripture came to mind. “Without the shedding of [Christ’s] blood their is no forgiveness of sins”. It’s by grace through faith that we are saved not wrath. I may be headed back to Calvinism. Altough I may not take eternal concious suffering but annihilationism. We’ll see.

[JaelSister]

Thanks Jason

You put it much more academically than I could muster, particularly when my only Internet access right now is my phone!

And yep, I think we all need to check out our presuppositions. Like the famous one that justice=wrath, that God HAS to pour out His wrath etc

[JaelSister]

Hey Jason,

I see what you are saying about Christ’s sacrifice. As I was reading your response and your false accusations against John Piper a scripture came to mind. “Without the shedding of [Christ’s] blood their is no forgiveness of sins”. It’s by grace through faith that we are saved not wrath. I may be headed back to Calvinism. Altough I may not take eternal concious suffering but annihilationism. We’ll see.

Michael, you’re genuinely (and I mean that), baffling me. Where did Jason falsely accuse Piper? And what of? I find nothing in the thread to indicate that.

Considering that you seem to literally be changing your mind theologically every few days, don’t you think it might be wiser to cut people a little slack and not be accusing them of twisting scriptures/accusing brothers, when you yourself are apparently finding the scriptures so complex, you cannot make up your mind about them?

[JasonPratt]

Hey Jason,

I see what you are saying about Christ’s sacrifice. As I was reading your response and your false accusations against John Piper a scripture came to mind. “Without the shedding of [Christ’s] blood their is no forgiveness of sins”. It’s by grace through faith that we are saved not wrath. I may be headed back to Calvinism. Altough I may not take eternal concious suffering but annihilationism. We’ll see.

Michael, you’re genuinely (and I mean that), baffling me. Where did Jason falsely accuse Piper? And what of? I find nothing in the thread to indicate that.

Considering that you seem to literally be changing your mind theologically every few days, don’t you think it might be wiser to cut people a little slack and not be accusing them of twisting scriptures/accusing brothers, when you yourself are apparently finding the scriptures so complex, you cannot make up your mind about them?

I might even recommend agnosticism on the topic, Cole. Even after I was sure on theological principle that some kind of universalism was true, I studied the scriptures for several years before committing to it, and continually rechecked my theological logic along the way, because I didn’t want to be hasty about taking a new settled position on the matter.

Didn’t you just recently reconvert to Christianity at all? (Or am I misremembering that from Victor’s journal?) There are plenty of other things to chew on in regard to the Creeds (pro or con!) before trying to figure out what it means for Christ to give eonian life and eonian crisis at His second coming.

Anyway, for what it’s worth I would rather you disbelieved in the salvation of all sinners from sin, than to believe sinners are saved by wrath (much moreso apart from Christ) instead of by grace through Christ. (But I would rather you didn’t schism between God’s wrath and God’s grace either.)

As to falsely accusing John Piper–falsely accusing him of what? At most I said

(1) that he was totally reading his partial exclusion of “all” into that material from John 12. (Which Alex demonstrated repeatedly in detail, and which you didn’t defend him on at all in any detail.)

and

(2) that he was being slipshod and outright self-refuting about how he was reading his partial exclusion of all into that material.

That’s a judgment about competency, and I would point to Alex’s comments which mirror what I myself would say about JP’s attempts there (if I had the time that day to write a long ditto analysis, which I didn’t).

If you think JP is being competent there instead, Alex’s analysis is available at the top of the thread to discuss. We didn’t write those attempts, John Piper did. We’re only commenting on them. You’re welcome to defend JP’s rationales if you want to try, and we can have a good discussion about that. (Or, if you already tried that, and don’t want to follow up my replies to you, maybe we’ll stop having a discussion about it now.)

If you think I accused JP of willfully ignoring context so he can twist the scriptures in order to intentionally mislead himself and other people–then I’d say you have the wrong JP in mind being accused of that by someone in this thread. Because I sure didn’t accuse John Piper of that.

Or do you have some other accusation from me against John Piper in mind? I think you’ll have a very hard time finding a quote from me on that, as I very much respect his charitable and evangelical work. I know we have some members who lose their tempers thinking about him, but I’ve actually cautioned them about accusing him so strongly. I have a rather high opinion of John Piper personally. (Maybe I shouldn’t, but I don’t know any better than to do so.)

Heck, I’m on public record somewhere around here (or maybe on Victor’s board) defending John Piper on an important detail countercritiquing Tom Talbott during their famous exchange. (Despite the fact that overall I’m much more in favor of Tom’s side of that discussion.)

[Cole]

Hey Jason,

Yes I came back to Christianity recently. I have been chewing on other things besides this. This isn’t the only thing I talk about. I see God’s wrath and grace as being paradoxical. Not a schizm. It’s both/and not either/or in my mind.

The Lexical definitions and the book of John make it clear that John Piper is right and he has not done what you claim he has done as I have already shown.

You are taking the words of the Bible out of context and twisting them. I’m not saying you are doing it on purpose though. I know you really want universalism to be true. But you may just have to swallow the hard pill and admit that Christ came to save His people from their sins. Not every single individual.

[JaelSister]

You are taking the words of the Bible out of context and twisting them. I’m not saying you are doing it on purpose though. I know you really want universalism to be true. But you may just have to swallow the hard pill and admit that Christ came to save His people from their sins. Not every single individual.

Michael, you really need to offer some evidence of this not just make the statement. I understand that you believe you have demonstrated it in your posts above, but you really haven’t. Lexical definitions can not prove you right either. We all know that, even in English, ‘all’ refers to the totality of the subject being referred to in that sentence/context. No one disputes that. The point is, you cannot conclusively nor even implicitly show from John 12 that the ‘all’ was referring to sheep or elect etc. You are assuming that, based on pre existing theology, as is Piper. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. We all bring our prior leanings with us when it comes to reading scripture. But to then claim that the text clearly says something based on that and to behave as if it’s everyone else adding to scripture? Well, that’s either disingenuous or short sighted. In your case, I tend to think it’s short sighted; that you’re still seeking truth and haven’t got all the pieces assembled yet.

In this particular thread, you appear to be ignoring things about your current theology that fellow brothers have pointed out make no sense. Instead of dealing with this, you just repeat the claim that you’re right. Yet again with no coherent justification. Im not pointing it out to be mean or annoying. But from what I’ve read of you wrestling with ideas lately, I doubt even you will be satisfied with your conclusions in a few days time. Why? Because they’re built on shaky ground which cannot withstand rigorous thought

Despite theological disagreements though, I’m thrilled you’re back loving Christ after time away from the faith. It’s good to have you here

[Alex_Smith]

Thanks Jason for being gracious & also for expanding on your reasoning, I found it quite helpful. e.g. ‘God will teach everyone.’ in John 6:45 is very encouraging.

Thanks JaelSister for being gracious too

I certainly don’t mind people disagreeing but Cole I’m puzzled by the tone of your responses to Jason As far as I can tell he’s bending over backwards to explain his logic, the context, and that it’s not just because “he wants universalism to be true”.

[pilgrim]

Whist I agree with Jason’s exegesis of scripture, I think it would be helpful to all if we show due respect to each other and take care on our exegesis of each others posts!
Specifically: the statement that scripture has been ‘twisted’ does not have to imply intention and therefore is not a slur on anyone’s integrity. Admittedly it is a strong word, but, good grief, we are all adults aren’t we? I am sure that I have unintentionally twisted scripture on many occasions! One of my minor gripes is how easily I twist my sleeping bag whilst trying to do the impossible and get a decent night’s sleep in a tent.
Additionally, I see no GOOD reason, why someone should start referring to a brother-in-Christ quite civilly by using their first name “Michael” but then change to what, in the UK, would be very disrespectful ie their surname “Cole”. As I say, in the UK this would be seen as inflammatory but perhaps not so much in the US? I don’t know.
Let’s all take a chill-pill and perhaps not be so quick on calling one another. (I know that I am the chief of sinners ).

God bless

P.S. I actually think that the view that “all” in this context means “all types” is a very reasonable position.

[JaelSister]

Whist I agree with Jason’s exegesis of scripture, I think it would be helpful to all if we show due respect to each other and take care on our exegesis of each others posts!
Specifically: the statement that scripture has been ‘twisted’ does not have to imply intention and therefore is not a slur on anyone’s integrity. Admittedly it is a strong word, but, good grief, we are all adults aren’t we? I am sure that I have unintentionally twisted scripture on many occasions! One of my minor gripes is how easily I twist my sleeping bag whilst trying to do the impossible and get a decent night’s sleep in a tent.
Additionally, I see no GOOD reason, why someone should start referring to a brother-in-Christ quite civilly by using their first name “Michael” but then change to what, in the UK, would be very disrespectful ie their surname “Cole”. As I say, in the UK this would be seen as inflammatory but perhaps not so much in the US? I don’t know.
Let’s all take a chill-pill and perhaps not be so quick on calling one another. (I know that I am the chief of sinners ).

God bless

P.S. I actually think that the view that “all” in this context means “all types” is a very reasonable position.

I dont find the term twisting in and of itself insulting. Although, in fairness, it is generally used in that manner in Christian circles. I really did just find it baffling! Like, ummmm, where??? I doubt Michael had any ill intent. But I would say he’s being inconsistent. Don’t we all do that at times!

I don’t think all types of men is necessarily a bad interpretation. I just think that it is not obvious from the text and context. It has to be assumed. And if you’re making assumptions, you have to fairly acknowledge that there are other reasonable interpretations also. Not just claim you’re right and others are wishfully thinking twisting scripture, without offering any evidence.

[Alex_Smith]

the statement that scripture has been ‘twisted’ does not have to imply intention and therefore is not a slur on anyone’s integrity. Admittedly it is a strong word, but, good grief, we are all adults aren’t we?

Thanks Pilgrim, I agree that we must try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially on text based forums where we miss out on the tone, facial expressions, body language, etc.

One of my minor gripes is how easily I twist my sleeping bag whilst trying to do the impossible and get a decent night’s sleep in a tent.

Mine too!

Additionally, I see no GOOD reason, why someone should start referring to a brother-in-Christ quite civilly by using their first name “Michael” but then change to what, in the UK, would be very disrespectful ie their surname “Cole”. As I say, in the UK this would be seen as inflammatory but perhaps not so much in the US? I don’t know.

I only call Michael_Cole “Cole” as that was what he requested in an earlier thread, otherwise I agree with you that it could be taken the wrong way

Let’s all take a chill-pill and perhaps not be so quick on calling one another.

Sorry if I offended anyone, it honestly was not my intention.