"deny the Master who bought them."

Very, very good teaching.

 

Listened to Mr White spewing out nothing but junk in that video.

Trying to say it was someone else that bought the sinner because the blood was not mentioned?

He is talking about false prophets... must be staring at his reflection in the camera standing in front of him.

If Mr White would read the whole chapter of 2 Peter instead of the first few verses, he would see Peter was speaking of none other that Jesus Christ when he wrote 'denying the Lord that bought them.'

 

He may have prior to the video, but he certainly did not read past verse 3 in the video.

Had he read farther, context would have shown Christ did indeed purchase even the ones who denied Him in the first half of the Chapter.

What Mr White demonstrated was not exegesis at all, but rather cherry picking verses and twisting them into a lie.

 

Mr White's poor sermon was to point people away from Christ by inferring the "Lord' mentioned in verse 1 was not Christ because the Greek word 'despotes' was used there while the blood was not.

Mr White failed to tell his listeners that Jesus was referred to as 'despotes' even as an infant in the temple by Simeon.

Of course, had Mr White let the people know that Christ had bought even the false prophet who denied Him as the Scripture states, it would have caused many to turn from the false doctrine of Calvinism that he has been teaching. It completely tears down the limited atonement.

 

Just another Calvinist interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1-3.

 

This was not a very good "exegesis" of the passage in question. This is what you get when you use theology to interpret scripture rather the scripture one's theology.

When he is speaking of the non-cal view pertaining to the term "bought" (refering to unlimited atonement) and what it presumably means (in his opinion) reminds me of Dave Hunt declaring what Calvinsts believe, it is laughable. (I take it back - no it isn't laughable but tragic)


His strawman of the car manuel was pathetic though, as well as his ridiculous statement that this verse is used to "build" the Unilimited view upon. It isn't even close to what the non-cals hold.


This would be quite laughable if it wasn't so sad.

He can't even explain what scripture means by the term 'bought' niether in 2 Pet nor Duet in proper context or usage. He rambles about it but never explains what scripture means that He 'bought" the them in either of the two passages he presents. He says soveriegnly bought them but in what way? How has God had to purchase them? That is what bought means, not created as he implies.

I like many things that White says and disagree with many as well. I respect him but I'm sorry this wasn't worth the 30 minutes I spent listening to it.

 

Everyone has one don't they

 

Come out with it TC..have you abandoned the Calvinism?

 

I listened to about half of it and already saw how he misunderstood the issue.

1) These false teachers were saved, reconciled to God, but would not accept Jesus as Master. Put another way, they did not become disciples. They "went into business for themselves."

2) The "swift destruction" is the same as Paul spoke of in Heb 6:6, 8 and Jesus in John 15:2, 6 -- the true church will swiftly reject their teachings and their ministries will be among the lost.

Like Hymenaeus (whom this man apparently is unaware), God will deliver them "unto Satan that they learn not to blasheme," 1Tim 1:20, who do "overthrow the faith of some," 2Tim 2:18.

Similarly, there was Simon Magus to whom Peter and John would not give the Holy Spirit and who is likely the first "Pope" at Rome. Talk about false teachers! Talk about "overthrowing the faith of some!" But you see also that in today's false teachers, the Holy Spirit is quenched, resisted, and grieved to where He doesn't speak to them either.

skypair

 

Have you ever come up short on Bible knowledge! A false teacher is not saved,period. A false teacher does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.Only an authentic believer can quench,grieve or anger the Holy Spirit.

Back to the drawing board you go.

 

Did you just fall off the turnip truck?These false teachers were saved and reconciled to God?! Then they were damned?!

Go back to Theology 101,but not in Mister Roger's neighborhood.

 

And of couse the reverse is actually true.Shame on you.

 

The text as explained by Dr.White has no bearing on the atonement.

BTW, it's not "false prophet";it's false prophets. And Calvinism is not a "false doctrine".First of all Calvinism is biblical and therefore true.Secondly, it does not consist of one doctrine.Calvinism teaches many doctrines ( way beyond the classical 5 points I might add).

 

Rippon, you seriously need to learn how to wrap your quotes. "

 

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't use a simple quote function? I see you still can't get it right with your last post...