Featured 2 Peter 2:1

Van, you have your man-centered theology. I do not agree with it and I have presented the hermeneutics surrounding 2 Peter 2:1. You can reject the hermeneutics I presented. What you personally hold to is of no importance to me. What is of importance to me is that sound hermeneutics are presented about God's Word, which is why I answered and provided scholarly understanding of 1 Peter 2:1.

No obfuscation. Just because you don't know the fullness of scripture and the covenantal work of God, that does not make it obfuscation. It does make it your incapacity to grasp the whole of scripture.

 

Great question.

 

Is the reason for the redemption:
1 Timothy 2:3-6, ". . . For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ."

 

You left out the context of 1 Timothy 2.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
~ 1 Timothy 2:1-6

Paul is making the distinction that God redeems from all status groups and people groups. Paul is not teaching universalism in the sense that all human beings will be saved.

 

II Peter 2:1 doesn't refer to Jesus buying anything. Wrong assumption, as to Who is being spoken of. Not Jesus.

2 Peter 2 Gill's Exposition

"..not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants (i), and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the Father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luke 2:29 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jde 1:4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deuteronomy 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:"

 

I am not sure what this has to do with John 10, but you will have to limit the 'alls' in some way.
If God will have every single person saved, then every single person will be saved (Psalms 115:3 etc.), and if the Lord Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for every single person, the every single one is ransomed.

 

An inconvenient truth for some.

 

You are making up stuff. And made up stuff refutes nothing.

Irrational denial disproves nothing.

 

How did Martin make it up?

 

How did he not?
My argument was regarding, John 10:11, ". . . I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. . . ." That this truth is the reason for what bas been understood to be a general redemption as has been understood to be taught in 1 Timothy 2:3-6, ". . . For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ."

 

Well, first, you ignore the verses in 2 Timothy 2 that proceed verse 3 so that you do not see the meaning that Paul is giving. Instead you make up a general redemption philosophy that the Apostle doesn't express.

John 10:11 shows you that your interpretation cannot be correct.

Therefore, how did Martin make up anything?

 

I do not see that I'm making anything up.. If God will have all men to be saved in the sense of every single person, then every single person will be saved. Since it appears that every single person will not be saved, you have to limit redemption in some way and say that God wills all men who believe to be saved. That is fair enough, except that it is not in the text. Likewise, you have to say that the man Christ Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all who believe. Again, it's not in the text.

Well, let me ask you the same question I asked @Van, since he seems strangely unwilling to answer. Does the Lord Jesus give His life for the false teachers mention in 2 Peter 2:1?
If so, are they His sheep?
If not, how does He 'buy' them?

 

The concept of the general redemption is as fundamental as the Trinity. Verse 3 is the beginning of a new subject.
. . . τουτο γαρ . . . .

 

Here. You are again make something up that we both know is not true. Universalism is not Biblical.

 

You have made a claim without an attempt to provide evidence of this. You have not proven that if God would have every person saved then every person will get saved. Now, that philosophy may be based on the errant reformed definition of election but you have not proven it either way.

Fact is if God designed salvation in such a way that His sacrifice results in the redemption available for those who choose to believe the gospel based on the empowering work of the word of God which is our source for faith in it, He can do that. He is not limited by the errant definitions nor the errant philosophies of the reformed position.

 

And you are just playing dumb. You know perfectly well what I'm getting at. Let me put it in a syllogism and see if that helps:
1. God will have all men to be saved.
2. God is sovereign.
3. Therefore, all men will be saved.

Now you know and I know that no. 3 is not true. Therefore, one of the others must also be untrue. Which is it?

 

If God 'designed salvation in such a way that His sacrifice results in the redemption available for those who choose to believe the Gospel,' then He does not will that all men shall be saved.
Perhaps I may point you to the syllogism in post #56 and invite your comments?

 

3. Is false because a false assumption is being made.
We know universalism is false.
How about?
1. God willing to have all men to be saved on the condition of coming to the truth.
2. God is sovereign.
3. Therefore, some men will be saved.

 

The problem with your "syllogism" is that your definition of God's sovereignty appears to be errant as well. What I have said and others in no way diminishes the sovereignty of God. It may be that you have an errant definition of God's will. In fact the ESV translates it as "desires". God can choose to make the plan of salvation such as He Jesus dies, makes salvation available to all but only saves those who believe, and everyone has a choice to believe or not to believe and God is still sovereign.

 

It's fine except that it denies 1 Timothy 2:3-4 which says that God desires all men to be saved. You are adding to the word of God and, whether you like it or not, limiting the redemption. No. 1 as you have written it states that God will not have all men to be saved unless they do something.