"deny the Master who bought them."

Rip, you're just a very angry man -- and anger is NOT a fruit of the Spirit.

Please compare what Paul said about Hymenaeus and what he said about the adulterous Corinthian, 1Cor 5:5. Was the adulterer saved? Yes. Is there any reason to believe that Hymenaeus is unsaved when Paul says that he "denies the Lord who bought him?"

Does Acts not tell us that Simon Magus "believed" just like the others present?

skypair

 

This old post is for Winman's sake. Sometimes a refresher from 17 months ago is needed.

 

Rippon,
I don't get it.

You said:

It's clear Christ bought them. How did He buy them? With His blood, correct? That is what it means to say "Christ bought them".

He atoned even for those who will reject Him.



1Jo*2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


Who is John talking about when he says "ours"?

Who is he talking about when he says "world"?

 

You really think I am going to listen to Mr. White? Quite a few people who are not nearly as opposed to Calvinism have already said he did a terrible and unscriptural job explaining this passage.

I have presented this verse myself many times to show that Christ died for all men and not just a few elect. I hardly believe Mr. White or any other Calvinist is going to change my mind.

When somebody has to do mental gymnastics to attempt to explain away scripture, you can bet they are in error.

By the way, I have listened to a few videos of Mr. White on YouTube. I am not impressed whatsoever. I find him very arrogant.

 

This needs to be repeated.

 

This also seems to need to be repeated - a Calvinist himself

 

Well, I watched the first 20 minutes just so Rippon and others could not say I am not willing to listen to their opinions, but I tell you, that was almost painful.

Sorry, but that is some of the worst preaching I have ever heard.

It's pretty pathetic when you have to hold services to convince your own people that your doctrine is true. Why? Is he worried people will read this verse and fall away from Calvinism? He should be. Must be a full time job keeping people reigned in with all the hundreds of scriptures that contradict Calvinism in the Bible. :laugh:

 

2nd Peter 2:1: Who is Denying Whom?

Here is the first verse under consideration, 2nd Peter 2:1:

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."

This passage is often used as proof that the effects of Christ's atonement must be wider than to just the elect, since the false teachers here written of, had Christ die for them. Then attention is drawn to the different verbs often used for "ransom", "redeem" etc. But what is often overlooked is the noun in the verse: The one who is doing the rescuing. And the Old Testament reference is too often missed.

Let's take a closer look at this phrase:

"even denying the Master ("DESPOTEN") who bought ("AGWRASANTA") them..."

This verse is not even speaking of Jesus Christ, rather it refers to God the Father.
The whole passage is referring back to Deuteronomy 32:1- 6. I was going to type the whole passage, but since time is now short I will just let those who want to to look it up. You will see that there are similar themes. More on that in a minute. First we have Peter's word "DESPOTES", a word which, though it often means "Lord", it refers to the Father, and not the Son. "Kurios" is the Son's word for "Lord". Check these verses out:

"The only Lord (DESPOTEN) God and our Lord (KURION) JESUS CHRIST" ~
Jude 4, referring respectively to first and second persons of the Trinity. Also: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2nd Timothy 2:21, Rev. 6:10, etc.

DESPOTES refers more to Lord as Master, while KURIOS refers more to Lord as Prince in reference to His subjects.
This fits in well with Scriptural uses, such as Christ being Prince of Peace. At any rate, 2nd Peter is referring to the Father and not to the Son. Nor is it referring to Calvary at all. How do we know this? Like I said, it goes back to Deut. 32:1- 6, which refers to God's rescuing the Israelites from Egypt.

We know that these here in 2nd Peter could not be bought on the Cross by Christ, because all of those that Christ so bought will be rescued, not one will end up in the damnation that these teachers obviously fall into. See: John 10:29; Romans 8:29- 39; Eph. 1:11- 14.

Other signs that Peter was thinking of Deuteronomy 32 when writing 2nd Peter 2:1 are the similar words used. Compare the "spotted children" (TEKNA MWMETA) of Deut. 32:5 (LXX - Peter's version) with 2nd Peter 2:13 and 3:14. Just a little study of both passages, especially if you have access to the LXX, should convince any unbiased reader that this is the true cross-reference of 2nd Peter 2:1.

Why go through all this trouble for such a little verse?
It is just to show that this verse does not show that Christ died for some that He did not save. This is about those who were rescued from Egypt, a physical and not a spiritual one (though it was a gracious token and prophetic sign for true salvation). These false teachers, though rescued from by their Master, the Father, effectively denied Him, by teaching the other Israelites to follow after Gods "whom their father did not know".

Christ never died for such false teachers. Their very lives are proof of their never having been regenerated, nor called (in the Romans 8:30 sense), nor died for.

Christ only died for the "children whom God has given [Him]". For those, and only for those, He took on the "nature of flesh and blood" and rescued from the devil. See and study carefully Hebrews 2:10- 18. Christ comes to rescue the "Children". He assumes flesh and blood because the children are made of flesh and blood. He became like us so that we may become, within our creature limits, like Him! Everyone He bought He will keep. And, yes, we may flounder at times but that true faith implanted will show itself in a heavenward affinity and allegiance. Denial of the Lord (Kurios) who bought us - and teaching of heresies concerning Him - is just not possible.

 

But this same word is used of Christ in Jude 4:

And we know how similar Jude and 2 Peter are. The same word also seems to be referring to the Lamb in Rev. 6:10. So I think it can be argued that this refers to Christ in 2 Peter as well.

 

I agree, lets

While I appreciate your passasion and study, you are incorrect here regarding it's usage. In fact we find that Jude 1:4 IS speaking, in fact, not of God AND Jesus but simply Jesus Himself.
Greek scholars like A.T. Robertson agree with this very point as seen here from Robertson Word Pictures:

Here is his note on 2 Peter 2:1

Vincent Word Studies states that this is Jesus as well and put's it this way:

With due respect ot Jude's statement regarding "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ"... is NOT distinquishing between 2 persons of the Trinity as this passage would designate unequivically that only the Father is the 'only' Lord God and Jesus is a subordinate - god, just as the JW's claim. In fact this statement is connecting the 'ONLY Lord God' (Absolute authority/master) directly to/with their (believers) Lord Jesus Christ (Kurios - which itself means supreme authority). Many older manuscripts don't even have the word 'God' (as in - only Lord God).

Since many, including the gnostics, tried to distinquish Jesus from absolute deity, Peter and Jude both displayed in their writing they were not seperate but that Jesus was in fact the very same Lord God.

Another person to place this word to Jesus is John in the book of the Revelation in which the 'Lord' (despotes) was asked how long he will with hold His judgement (Rev 6:10), and it was Jesus who stated that all judgment and authority to execute judgment was given unto Him. As He states - it isn't the Father who judges but Him.

Thus, out of the 10 times in the NT the word is used, one third are attributed to Jesus. This disproves your theory that it is only used concerning God and not Jesus.

Sorry, your wrong as the sentence contruction does not and can not reflect your opinion. As I have shown, 3 out of 10 times 'despotes' refers to Jesus which is consistant with scripture since He really is God and therefore carries not only the same authority but also the same title that the Lord God is necessarily to be applied to.

Incorrect again. It is precisely refering to Calvary. Deut 32:6 refers to their purchase, and we see in Isa 43:3 that Egypt was given for their ransom.
The Hebrew, kopher, means properly "that with which anything is overlaid," hence that which covers over sins, an atonement. Israel purchase by God was done with a 'type' of atonement which included all of Isreal, just as the picture of the blood on the door posts illistrated this same picture. Anyone could have done this, or gone to anothers home under that protection as it was not exclusive to anyone but for all. Yet only those of faith either did such or went to where they could come under said protection and the rest - who rejected the protection of the blood- were under judgment.

Here, you are trying to comform scripture to your theology and thus you set us a false premise and come to a false conclusion.

I agree, a little study will reveal a lot about both passages and that they both are dealing with those who were bought, NOT created.
You can't even come to any other conclusion about the texts unless one changes the meanings of the word to something other than their typical understanding. (and this includes using the LXX - which I not sure I understand why that matters)

POINT OF CLARIFICATION please: Are you saying that you think Deut 32 is about people who were not God's children??

You aren't paying attention to what is actually being stated in the passage then. The Deut passage is about a peaple, literally the people of God which was the Nation of Isreal who was purchased or bought and it was for THIS reason God was called - their Father. Now was ALL (all without exception) of the Nation of Israel saved due to this? Yes or No?

You have yet to provide any applicable definition of either - bought nor Father, in specific relation to those who are unsaved. You 'say' they mean something else yet haven't given anything to support it, or at least substantial to your interpretation.

The rest, I feel there is no real need to deal with because it is your theological opinion and you, like others, (with respect to this verse) try very hard to force it to mean something the natural meaning will not allow for.

 

I'm debating whether I even want to go this route again. There was a lot I was going to answer to your comments - and some good points you brought up, too - but then I read this last barb of yours, and it gave me pause. Why go through all this effort if it is seen as mere theological opinion.

Look, judging by your picture I have probably held your view as long as you were alive. I don't need to "try very hard to force" anything.

Do you think before you post?

 

Yes, Marcia, the same word is used in Jude. I had already mentioned that. But that verse in Jude does not say that Christ actually bought those ones who would end up being false teachers. There is a distinction between redemption and temporary rescue. Peter was referring to the latter when he used that passage in Deuteronomy. These are those who, Peter goes on to explain, will go back to the mire of sin, having been temporarily freed.

 

Why should I think before I post?
I post just like you and everyone else on here.

The last portion wasn't a 'barb' at all nor was it's intent to be hidden barb. I was simply stating the rest was nothing more than the typical theological speak to bolsters one personal view - regardless of which ever side one happens to be apart of. Thus if it was me writing it (or something to the same effect), I would assume most typically would not venture to comment on it. However with respect to 'this' verse (as I stated) it is in fact a forcing of another meaning, since both the plain and natural meaning fits perfectly with not only the context but also as "I" see the rest of the whole of scripture speaking to the view I see consistant in scripture.

Now with repsect to the 'forcing' issue - Are you really going to tell me that there are not any passages, of those whom you disagree with, that you think they are doing a bit (or more) of forcing themselves? And are you really going to tell me that you would not make such a statement to them that you see them trying to force (or bring in either supposition or presupposition) to a certain text? If you don't like the term, you can opt for superimposing another meaning if you wish but in either case the end result is the same.

There are even those Calvinists/Reformed brethren who disagree with yours and others view of what the passage is to mean.

 

But Peter is talking in the present. Often the OT foreshadows in a physical way but is spiritually made manifest in the NT. Peter is clearly referring to false teachers in the church, denying the "Master" who bought them - this would be Jesus. I don't see how it can be seen any other way. If it's God who "bought" them, how did He buy them? Through the blood of Jesus.

Either way, you have the atoning blood of Jesus spilled for these teachers, according to the passage. It seems one would have to do mental and verbal contortions to make it say anything else.

 

Typical cop-out post...with ad hominem for extra flair

 

Not to worry. When I do write it certainly won't be to the king of ad hominem.

 

I believe that you are unwittingly adding something to the text when you say the above: To speak of "the atoning blood of Jesus [being] spilled" for anyone is already saying much more than what the passage is saying.

Another thought: Have you ever looked more closely at the passage in Deuteronomy? Or do you see that as not being part of Peter's point? I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to understand your view on this.

 

BTW this is precisely the reason that I don't like being called "Calvinist"; I believe Calvin missed the boat on this passage. Reading his commentary on this was a disappointing eye-opener for me. Well, it is a reminder that, ultimately, we need to prayerfully always study the Bible for ourselves.

 

First of all, Peter is not quoting Deut 32. You are the one who says that what Peter says is similar to Deut 32. I see no basis for making Deut. 32 the context of the statement in 2 Peter 2. (Yes, I did look at that passage in Deut.).

Even if one wants to make Deut. 32 applicable, it does not then make "Master" refer to God instead of Jesus. Who is denying the Master who bought them? The false teachers in the church are doing this. How is someone "bought" in the NT? They are bought by Jesus. They are bought by His blood. This is why I said that. One cannot avoid "bought."

 

Any time it takes several paragraphs to try to explain one phrase, I know a person is trying to get the scriptures to say something that a plain reading would contradict. Therefore, I believe you are only trying to muddle the issue in order to keep from admitting one more error in Calvinism.