From Hebrews itself, that writer stated that gifts were used to validate the Apostolic teachings, but were veasing in that time!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2 Peter 2:1 shows Jesus died for the non-elect
- Thread starter ICHTHUS
- Start date
- Status
As it is in most of the discussions here!
Would you post the verses please.
2 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
Only if you are a dispensationalist and require different ages. I recognize the age of grace from Genesis to Revelation. God is free to share His gifts anyway He desires and withold His gifts anyway He desires.
Who else did the healings/miracles in Acts other than the Apostles though
There is no mention of cessation in these verses. There is mention of God giving gifts as He wills, which is my contention.
Well, Paul was not really an Apostle, as were the 12 whom Jesus chose.
Confirmed to us by those whop heard and knew the lord seem to narrow it down to that special group of people, eh?
Phillip and his daughters had gifts.
Here's John Piper on the issue.
Are Signs and Wonders for Today? | Desiring God
That's a stretch to say the miraculous gifts have ceased based upon that sentence alone.
As I have said, it doesn't bother me if God witholds gifts or grants them. It is His Sovereign choice.
First, I was merely pointing out that δεσπότης is never used in reference to Jesus Christ. I was in no way attempting to undermine scripture because I went on to state, "This does not settle the debate, but it may help us in determining what the verse may or may not mean." That is quite an accusation. Second, if the "false prophets" to whom Peter is referring are the "certain men" to whom Jude is referring are the same, as they undoubtedly seem to be by comparing the two passages, in what sense were they bought? If they were bought in a salvific sense, you must take the position that one can be saved and then lost again because Jude states that they do not have the Spirit (Jude 1:19; cf. Romans 8:9). Third, scripture no where refers to any man as being bought or redeemed based solely on the blood of Christ apart from repentance and faith (viz., being born again). Therefore, in order to be consistent with your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1, you must take the position that one can be saved and then lost again. Is that your position?
I do not believe that any person can go to heaven without repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as both Saviour and Lord. Just because Jesus died on the cross for the entire human race, including this who will ultimately reject Him, does NOT mean that they will all end up in heaven. it is based on repentance. These people for whom Jesus died in 2 peter 2:1, actually DENIED the fact that Jesus "bought them" by His blood on the cross. You say, "scripture no where refers to any man as being bought or redeemed based solely on the blood of Christ apart from repentance and faith (viz., being born again)", which is Biblically incorrect, as a person does not repent because Jesus died for them, but because they are guilty of their sins which will send them to hell, and THEN turn to the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and cleansing of their sins by His blood. You have it the wrong way round!
Hi Chris, and your point being? I am showing the correct use of the Greek word, "agorazo", which is translated "bought", which the standard Greek lexicons say refers to "the blood of Jesus Christ". This same word is used both for believers in 1 Corinthians, and unbelievers in 2 Peter, both classes for whom Jesus died.
Certainly the blood of Christ is the basis of salvation, but no man is redeemed solely because Christ died for his sins. If that were true, preaching the gospel would be vain. Therefore, if these false prophets were bought with the precious blood of Christ, they were saved. If they were saved, they were ultimately lost. Your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1, then, proves more than you wish to admit. Furthermore, ἀγοράζω is also used in contexts having nothing to do with the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. I invite you to consult your Greek lexicons on this issue. Also, you now have redeemed men being cast into the lake of fire according to your view of the atonement.
Last edited:
Funny that's just what God appears to have intended, our being given the gift of free will as it should be, by God Himself. As for that idea making God "secondary"....I don't think God is much impressed by that assessment.
No. God gives us the gift of grace and the gift of faith. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Nowhere in the Bible do you find God giving us a gift of free will. Stop making it up bbmember. You seem to be demanding control for yourself in a place where God Sovereignly decides.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. -Ro. 9.16
Church history does not record any real persons gifted to heal/do miracles since John passed away though!
- Status