Featured Who are those ALL God has Mercy On ?

I believe what Jesus said. Do you?

Jesus said ALL manner of sin shall be forgiven EXCEPT one.

Why would Jesus have to tell the elect the sin of unbelief will not be forgiven? Don't you preach the elect are caused to believe and thus cannot ever not believe again?

Why would Jesus have to tell any unbeliever they will die in their sins? You think they care? They don't believe Him!!!!!According to Calvinism they cannot believe unless Jesus makes them believe. So Jesus telling them if they believe not they will die in their sins is pointless in Calvinism. As is most of the NT writings.

 

That's what I asked you. So what's the point in Jesus telling the elect if they do not believe they will die in their sins?

 

Yet another Calvinist shouting taint so, when confronted with scripture teaching Calvinism is mistaken. Note the response is devoid of content, and seeks to change the topic to my behavior.

God showed mercy to all mankind when Christ died for all mankind, laying down His life as a ransom for all, including those not saved and those who will not be saved. 2 Peter 2:1

 

Yes sir I do. I am agreeing with you.

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk

 

Yet another repeat of a post devoid of content, seeking to change the subject to my behavior.

The inability to defend Calvinism on display!

They have no answer for 2 Peter 2:1 so they change the subject. Go figure. Christ tasted death for everyone. He laid down His life as a ransom for all.

 

Brother Van,

This passage is not the death nail to limited atonement. The following is from a commentary article on this verse titled "2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption" by Simon Escobedo III. If interested, the whole article can be found here http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html


"To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.

[B]It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. It has also been demonstrated that the term “bought” (agorazo) in the New Testament is most frequently used in non-redemptive contexts.[/B] When used redemptively there are specific pointers that are conspicuously absent in 2 Peter 2:1 (such as the purchase price, believers as the lone object, or the presence of other mediatorial or redemptive features). Since this is so, it of necessity eliminates the assumed non-Reformed interpretation, at the very least, as the only viable interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1
In Conclusion

We are left then with two possible understandings to the text:

1. The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate.

2. The term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance. "

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Hi Brother Joseph, thanks for offering the attempted rebuttal, rather than a non-sequitur.

Here is the gist of the argument: "The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate."

This argument redefines "bought" to mean redeemed/saved. But that is not what Paul is saying. The person denying he was bought was unsaved. He had never been saved. What Christ bought was the means to save everyone who believes. No one "receives" the reconciliation automatically, God must credit their faith in Christ as righteousness, or acceptable to Him. Thus Christ tasted death for everyone, but did not save everyone.

I am surprised the argument actually claims the Master in view is not Christ. The word is used to refer to the Father and to the Son as God. See Jude 4 and Rev. 6:10.

So, Brother Joseph, the verse is the death nail to limited atonement as defined by Calvinism, and should be filed with all the rest of the verses, i.e. Christ tasted death for everyone, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

 

Brother Van,

That is not the gist of the argument. That is one possible alternative the author put forth, but not his proposed interpretation of the word "bought" as used in the 2 Peter 2:1. I highlighted the portions I was trying to stress, but evidently you must not have read it if in depth if that is what you concluded was the "gist" of his argument. That was not one of the portions I even highlighted. I have pasted below again his central thesis and bolded in black again for emphasis. Please take a minute to read it in it's entirety before responding.

""To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1."

Again, you must have not read the actual argument. The author is asserting the "Master" in view is indeed Christ, but Christ as Sovereign, not Christ in the Savior or Mediator role. The Greek meaning for the word "master" used in that verse makes this interpretation appropriate. I have again reposted this portion of his argument, please read in entirety if you desire to respond to the post.

"It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. .. (the verse)is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance."

Further Brother Van, the Greek word "master" as used in the verse has the following definition that I bring your attention to that further strengthens the author's conclusion above as being correct

"1203 despótēs (from posis, "husband") – properly, an authority figure ("master") who exercises complete jurisdiction (wields unrestricted power).

[1203 (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints" (R. Trench, 96).]"

Definition above attained from here http://biblehub.com/greek/1203.htm


God bless,

 

Brother Joseph, no need to repeat the rebutted arguments, please address the rebuttals.

Let me restate it by the numbers:
1) The claim is "bought" cannot mean saved. The rebuttal, my position does not claim bought means saved.

2) What Christ bought was the means to save everyone who believes. You did not address this position.

3) Christ did not buy the allegiance of the false teacher, but his means of salvation.

4) I provided two verses that also use "master" to mean God or Christ. Clearly here the reference is to Christ. Jude 4 uses the term to refer to Christ, the provider of grace. The claim in the article is without support.

 

Brother Van,

As I stated, the Greek word for the word "bought" in that verse is often not used in a redemptive sense. You did not read or do not know how to comprehend what you read if that is what you concluded was the "gist" of his argument. In the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive. This was his central argument.

Again, you must have not fully read either time it was posted. The author did not claim that the Greek word for "master" was not referring to Christ as the following sentence that I have posted twice states it is "to Christ...as Sovereign! " He writes,"It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign."

Further, this argument that the word master in the verse refers to Christ as the owner of those he "bought" in a manner similar to Deut. 32:5-6 of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance is further strengthened as the Greek word for master used is "despotes" is explicitly defined as "an authority figure ("master") who exercises complete jurisdiction (wields unrestricted power)"
http://biblehub.com/greek/1203.htm

He created the nonelect, therefore it can be said He has a master/slave type relationship in that He "bought" or "created" them, but He did not buy them in a redemption sense. This relationship of authority over the non-elect is seen in the following two verses, "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4) and "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:21)

I have now answered you a third time in this thread, if you choose to ignore or not read this post in it's entirety or respond to the points made herein, I trust any fair minded reader can see this was the case by a simple reading of the exchange between us on the thread. I also noticed that in your two "replies" to my posts (i.e. your post 33 and 35) you did not quote my posts, further proof that you do not desire to debate, but I quoted your posts for both of my replies with applicable responses both times.

 

Spot on brother Van! :thumbsup: This is so painfully obvious that I do not understand why anyone would attempt to dismiss it away just to save a man made theology. Just let the Word say what it says without putting it through hoops and jumps.

 

How else would God have bought them? Do you see any other buying being done by the Lord in the Scriptures?