What is the topic of this thread again?
-
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
Ask TCassidy who opened the door with the elaborate message of how great the KJV is!
The poorest of exegesis assumes that every time a Greek word is used in the New Testament, it has the same exact meaning throughout. We know that words used in any language have some variant meanings.
The meaning of agarazo in 1 Cor. 6:20, in context, has very little do with its meaning in context in 2 Pet. 2:1. To imply that 2 Pet. 2:1 refers to 'bought with the blood of Christ', the atonement, like 1 Cor. 6:20 does is strange interpretation and doctrine. The context of 2 Pet. 2:1 is referring to those why deny the sovereign Lord who owned them fully. 'Bought' is an aspect of ownership of human beings (which is foreign to age where legal slavery doesn't exist) but it is not the only aspect. So how does the Lord own those who deny Him? In the sovereign creation of their souls and determination of their destiny as intimately as He creates and owns His elect people.
Farmer #34
The meaning of agarazo in 1 Cor. 6:20, in context, has very little do with its meaning in context in 2 Pet. 2:1. To imply that 2 Pet. 2:1 refers to 'bought with the blood of Christ', the atonement, like 1 Cor. 6:20 does is strange interpretation and doctrine. The context of 2 Pet. 2:1 is referring to those why deny the sovereign Lord who owned them fully. 'Bought' is an aspect of ownership of human beings (which is foreign to age where legal slavery doesn't exist) but it is not the only aspect. So how does the Lord own those who deny Him? In the sovereign creation of their souls and determination of their destiny as intimately as He creates and owns His elect people.
Farmer #34
"strange interpretation and doctrine" to who? ONLY those who oppose the Bible FACT that the Lord loves EVERYONE and is WILLING that NONE of these perish, would think that this is "strange". It is very interesting that "Calvinists", who say they have their "doctrines" from John Calvin, never seem to quote what he has to say on John 3:16, which shows their understanding that Jesus only died for the "elect", is NOT what he believed. Here is what he says:
"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
Read this honestly, and see what is said here:
"And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers"
Does Calvin here mean by "all", only the "elect"? If so, then it is pointless for him to then say, "to cut off every excuse from unbelievers", as ALL of the "elect" will come, because they have been "preordained" for this before the foundation of the world, and they would never have any "excuse", as they would WANT to come. So "Calvinism" says.
Then, we see that Calvin says of the term "world", not as "Calvinists" would have us understand it as the "elect", but Calvin himself tells us, "reconciled to the whole world", and then expands on this phrase to make it very clear what hge means. "when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life." Language that no "Calvinist" would ever use. ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION, when the correct "Calvinistic" phrase is, "ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION". God therefore invites ALL MEN, that is, the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, according to Calvin, and for the purpose of "ETERNAL LIFE", which is in Jesus Christ. I could not have put this any better!
For those who never knew, or never bothered to find out, the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" has NOTHING to do with John Calvin, and came many years after his death by those opposed to the Gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ, to "ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION", that Calvin rightly says. I read somewhere on this forum, that John did not use "whosoever" in the Greek, well, here we have Calvin put that right, by saying that it is a UNIVERSAL term, and includes, ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION, which cannot be said to represent the "elect" only.
I await a response from the experts on here
This is what three of the leading Greek lexicons have to say on "ἀγοράζω", as used in 2 Peter 2:1
"figuratively: Christ is said to have purchased his disciples i. e. made them, as it were, his private property, 1Co_6:20 (this is commonly understood of god; but cf. Joh_17:9-10); 1Co_7:23 (with the genitive of price added; see τιμή, 1); 2Pe_2:1."
(Joseph Thayer who was a Unitarian and therefore did not believe in the need to even be saved!)
"buy, acquire as property of believers, for whom Christ has paid the price, with his blood, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 2. Pt. 2:1" (W F Arndt and F W Gingrich)
"to redeem, to acquire for one's self by a ransom or price paid; spoken in N.T. of those whom Christ has redeemed by his blood from the bondage of sin and death. 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23; 2 Pet 2:1" (Edward Robinson)
This is what I have said the Greek usage of the word means, but leading Greek scholars. It is very clear that the MEANING of "ἀγοράζω" in 2 Peter 2:1, is the SAME as 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23. Only those interested in the Truth as taught in Scripture, will accept this and stop trying to put personal doctrine above what the Word of God actually says.
That literally made me laugh out loud. What an abysmally ignorant statement. Anyone who has been on the forum for any appreciable length of time knows I am one of the most vigorous opponents of King James Onlyism on the Baptist Board.
I believe the KJV was a good translation, for its day, of a flawed representative of the Byzantine textform.
But today it is badly outdated and much better Greek textforms exist which point out the flaws in the eclectic TR(s) it was based on.
LOL! Again, that is hilarious.
You really are out in left field, aren't you? Because I am not confused regarding the Tri-Unity of the Godhead I must think the KJV is a great translation?
You flunked logic, didn't you? LOL!
How to make a really good deep dish pizza! I think...
You are very much mistaken if you think the modern versions are based on a better text than the KJV. I quote from Bruce Metzger, who is much over-rated as a textual critic, on modern versions:
"The influence of Lucian of Antioch (d.A.D.312) as textual editor was felt far beyond his native country of Syria. As has been indicated in the previous pages, his recension of the New Testament was adopted at Constantinople and from there it spread widely throughout Greek speaking lands... but even beyond the limits of the Greek Orthodox Church, Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, p.27)
And then we have, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament", informs us that the recension of Lucian, "is probably the parent of the great bulk of our Greek Mss." (Dr Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.185)
Lucian, as Church History informs us, was the actual founder of what became known as Arianism, as Arius was one of the pupils who attended Lucian's school, and used his Christology and Pneumatology from him. As we know that Arius taught that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were created, and therefore not “God” in the fullest sense of the word, but some “secondary god”, which is what the cult, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (and others) teach today. And this man’s work has become, by the working of the enemy within the Church, the textual basis for the greater majority of Bible versions in many languages.
Of Bruce Metzger we know his LIBERAL views on Scripture:
"“The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time” (Introduction to the Old Testament, New Oxford Annotated Bible).
Genesis: “Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses” (Metzger’s Introduction to Genesis, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).
Exodus: “As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books” (Metzger’s Introduction to Exodus, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).
Deuteronomy: “It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time” (Metzger’s Introduction to Deuteronomy, Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible).
This is the "scholarship" that we have for the modern versions. the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament and Textual Commentary on the New Testament, often misrepresent the textual evidence on important passages.
Once again you utterly failed to understand what I said and read into my statement that which simply is not there.
The "much better Greek textforms" would be, in the order of my confidence in them:
1. The New Testament in the Original Greek; Byzantine Textform 2005 edition by Robinson and Pierpont.
2. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad.
3. The New Majority Greek Text by Wilbur Pickering.
(The last one, unfortunately, reflects his present position in asserting that Family 35 is a reproduction of the Autographs. It is a good Greek text but does not, in my opinion, reproduce the Autographs, and even if it did we have no way of proving that.)
These are YOUR own words:
"I believe the KJV was a good translation, for its day, of a flawed representative of the Byzantine textform.
But today it is badly outdated and much better Greek textforms exist which point out the flaws in the eclectic TR(s) it was based on."
This is clear that you think that the KJV was "for its day", which means it is "outdated", as you say! Which is complete rubbish. There are NO textual scholars today of the same class as Scrivener, Burgon and Kenyon
I love pizza.
must be made from "reformed dough"!
Exactly. The NKJV, while using the same, slightly flawed, TR has brought the English up to date.
And, yes, Jacobean English is outdated for early 21st century English speakers and readers.
Other English versions such as the WEB version has updated the old ASV of 1901 using the Greek Majority Text New Testament with a very good result.
The English Majority Text Version, the work of Paul Esposito, Th.D., originally based on Hodges/Farstad Greek text, has now, in the 3rd edition come much closer to the Robinson/Pierpoint, edition of the Byzantine Textform.
Was on the Translation team for the Revised Version of 1881.
Believed both the KJV and the TR needed revision.
". . .(I)t might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text." (p. xxix, preface, Revision Revised, London, 1883).
He then proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone.
"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the textus receptus needs correction." (p. 21, footnote 2, Ibid).
"I have not by any means assumed the textual purity of that common standard. In other words, I have not made it 'the final standard of appeal.' ALL Critics,--wherever found,--at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient standard of comparison; not, surely, as the absolute standard of excellence." (pp. xviii-xix, preface, Ibid)
Sir Frederic Kenyon believed the Revised Version of 1881 represented a far sounder text than the Authorized Version of 1611.
Than why does every modern version translate the Holy Spirit always as "He?"
There is NO Grammar reason to ever translate the Spirit as being an it!
Thanks for the info. I shall look into this. Kind regards
Yes, there is. "Spirit" in the Greek is "πνεῦμα" which is neuter in gender. grammatically it would require the neuter pronoun, "αὐτὸ", which literally is "it", as it is in the KJV in Romans and John. However, because Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit as a Person (another Comforter like Himself), He does use the masculine, "ἐκεῖνος" (He), in John 15:26 for example.
I believe the antecedent of "he" (noun, singular, masculine) in John 15:26 is "comforter" (noun, singular, masculine) in the immediately preceding context.
Well, except the FACT that both the Greek noun and the pronoun are NEUTER!
I understand that, but didn't jesus Himself also other timers qualified the Spirit as a he /Him though?
- Status