Featured Who are those ALL God has Mercy On ?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2244030&postcount=54

 

Do you really think playing this game will somehow vindicate your position on this?

Everyone has seen my answer and has seen your reply.

Here is your position on reading scripture....

Show us that you understand how to know what scripture is speaking of....

"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1Co 6:20

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." 1Co 7:23

Now you give answer. What are these two verses speaking of if not the blood of Christ?

 

LOL....that was blunt & direct.....good for you :laugh:

 

We now have several pages of shuck and jive. The effort is to derail and disrupt discussion of what is meant by folks heading for destruction being bought by Christ. Does "master" refer to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1? Yes. As sovereign? Nope. As the provider of grace? Yes.

What was bought? The means of salvation for everyone, even those not saved.

Limited atonement as defined by Calvinism has once again been shown to be mistaken. Christ died as a ransom for all. Christ tasted death for everyone. Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

 

Hey! I gave an answer, and subsequently was ignored. What say you, SBM?

 

Am I being ignored?

 

The above is a typical Calvinist answer. Yes, it is a question. The verse has been quoted and the meaning of bought as referring to the sacrifice of Christ as been put forward. No alternate view as been presented.

What is meant by folks heading for destruction being bought by Christ? Does "master" refer to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1? Yes. As sovereign? Nope. As the provider of grace? Yes.

Calvinism denies that the false teachers were bought by Christ, thus affording them the means of salvation.

 

I think that Reformed folk need to admit that 2 Peter 2:1b is a difficult text, that it is legitimate for Arminians to bring it up and that it needs careful consideration.

If we are to understand the text correctly we need to compare Scripture with Scripture, for I'm sure we all agree that the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

In John 6:39. our Lord tells us, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day" (NKJV). So the Father has given to the Son a people to 'buy back' or redeem (cf. also Matt. 11:25-27; John 6:37; 17:2, 6), and of these people He will lose none. You find the same thing in John 10. Christ's sheep will never perish and no-one will snatch them out of His hands. It's also important to note verse 26, where our Lord says to the Pharisees, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep." So one does not become a sheep by believing and then morph into a goat if one falls away; one believes because one is of Christ's flock.

So how shall we reconcile these verses with 2 Peter 2:1b? Well, we notice that at one time these false teachers professed the name of Christ, for they claimed to know Him and the way of righteousness (vs. 20-21). Therefore at one time they were claiming to be blood-bought believers, but now they are denying the very one who bought back believers with His blood. They are the people spoken of in John 2:19. 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us they would have continued with us.' They are not of Christ's sheep and therefore He did not lay down His life for them, and one day they will hear Him say, "I never knew you!" Not, "I knew you once and then forgot about you!"

So what Peter is saying is that these false teachers at one time claimed to be orthodox Christians and therefore bought by the blood of Christ, but now they are revealed as apostates and their denial of Him shows that they are not redeemed.

 

Clearly not. I think there is the O.T. reference that others have pointed out- Exodus 15:16. God 'purchased' the Israelites, but not with the blood of Christ, and most of them perished in the wilderness. This is the difference between the Old and New Covenants. Everyone in the New Covenant is saved (Jer. 31:31ff etc.). Everyone in the New Covenant has been bought with the blood of Christ, "And they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."

 

I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian but I disagree with your premise here. I am understanding that your premise here is that this verse suggests that if one is bought then one is automatically a sheep. Whether that is true or not is another discussion but the verses you have listed here do not suggest nor support that premise.
What you forget here is that Jesus made very clear in Matthew 15:24 that He was sent sent "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus first mission was to Israel which is even a common theme from the writings of Paul. Such was the mission Jesus spoke of in John 6. When we look into the gospels we must needs be careful to differentiate between Christ's ministry to the Jews first then to the Gentiles. Those who He did not lose are those of the house of Israel.

 

You say the poster lied; but you've provided no evidence that he lied. Only your statement that you disagree with him. That's not a lie; that's a disagreement.

If it's a lie, then you *MUST* provide the evidence of why it's a lie. In other words, you *MUST* identify what was used to buy them.

If you cannot, or will not, provide that evidence, then you owe the poster an apology for saying he lied, when really what you mean is the two of you disagree.

 

Not only that but he/she needs to provide evidence that they knew the truth but said what was not true anyway in order for it to qualify for them to have lied. Calling someone a liar simply because they said something one disagrees with is as bad as lying and should have no place in Christian discussions.

 

Guys, it's not worth your time to argue scripture with SBM. He's proven that he has his own little interpretation in which certain words have no meaning, and other words mean something completely different than what they say. His is the perfect hyper-Calvinist interpretation. You get more engaging debate by talking to your house pets. At least they might try to communicate back, instead of just accusing you and telling you they won't debate until you repeat their points.