2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

[37818]

2 Peter 2:1, ". . . denying the Lord that bought them, . . ."

. . . the Lord . . ." in the text refers to God.

Luke 2:29.
Acts of the Apostles 4:24.
Jude 1:4
Revelation 6:10.

". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . ."

 

[Alan Gross]

2 Peter 2:1, ". . . denying the Lord that bought them, . . ."

. . . the Lord . . ." in the text refers to God.

Luke 2:29.
Acts of the Apostles 4:24.
Jude 1:4
Revelation 6:10.

". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . ."

Yes, the Lord in that text is God and in those others verses,
as long as and unless...

You may be able to tell that I'm a little bit familiar with writing contracts.

As long as what Br. Gross? How about, as long as what the Lord, despothv, is said to have bought does not include their individual souls...?

And unless? And unless, by Lord, despothv, you want to say that it talking about Jesus as the Lord, kuriov, with Him referred to as having bought these men's souls, with His blood.

Neither of those things are what it is talking about that had happened there, by "the Lord (despothv) that bought them".

 

[37818]

Yes, the Lord in that text is God and in those others verses,
as long as and unless...

You may be able to tell that I'm a little bit familiar with writing contracts.

As long as what Br. Gross? How about, as long as what the Lord, despothv, is said to have bought does not include their individual souls...?

And unless? And unless, by Lord, despothv, you want to say that it talking about Jesus as the Lord, kuriov, with Him referred to as having bought these men's souls, with His blood.

Neither of those things are what it is talking about that had happened there, by "the Lord (despothv) that bought them".

Jude 1:4, ". . . For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, the Lord in that text is God and in those others verses,
as long as and unless...

You may be able to tell that I'm a little bit familiar with writing contracts.

As long as what Br. Gross? How about, as long as what the Lord, despothv, is said to have bought does not include their individual souls...?

And unless? And unless, by Lord, despothv, you want to say that it talking about Jesus as the Lord, kuriov, with Him referred to as having bought these men's souls, with His blood.

Neither of those things are what it is talking about that had happened there, by "the Lord (despothv) that bought them".

You have made your negative comment regarding the text in question but what you have not done is provide any alternative option as to what the text does mean.

We see in 1 John 2:2 that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of believers but then we see that He was also the propitiation for the sins of unbelievers also {the whole world}. John the Baptist under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke of Christ as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world {John 1:29}. Would these false teachers not be part of the whole world?

While the gift of salvation has been made available to all through the shed blood of Christ it is only realized by faith in the risen Christ. For by grace you have been saved through faith; {Ephesians 2:8}

So what we can conclude is that not all the teachers of the word present the truth of the word and in doing so deny the one who bought them, Christ Jesus.

 

[37818]

1 John 5:10, ". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . ."

1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ."

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

 

[Alan Gross]

Yes, the Lord in that text is God and in those others verses,
as long as and unless...

Unless, sly as a fox Br. 37 is trying to slip in here with 'that bought them' has anything to do with trying to mean those men had 'salvation of their souls from the Lord' or 'salvation of their souls through our Lord Jesus Christ's.

And sure enough.

I have to watch you real close most of the time, 37!

'Salvation' is not intended by 'bought' and then when 'our Lord Jesus Christ' is brought up in Jude 1:4 'bought' is not mentioned in any way and even if we grant that it might be saying 'bought them' could be implied from that parallel passage in I John 2:2, Jude 1:4 says plainly that those men had denied the Lord Jesus Christ.

They had denied everything about Jesus Christ, including His offer of salvation through the Gospel in the first place, and had never been saved.

As long as what Br. Gross? How about, as long as what the Lord, despothv, is said to have bought does not include their individual souls...?

From my saved buddy Gill, now worshipping the Lord Eternally, without any presence of sin at all, anywhere!!!!!!!!! 2 Peter 2 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

"...denying the Lord that bought them; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word kuriov is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but despothv;

"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 Jude 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 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;"

And unless? And unless, by Lord, despothv, you want to say that it talking about Jesus as the Lord, kuriov, with Him referred to as having bought these men's souls, with His blood.

From the alive forevermore and well Br. Gill:
2 Peter 2 Bible Commentary - John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

Those lost men had, "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?"

Jude 1:4, ". . . For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."

If we can notice and get anything from this verse, it should be easy enough to see that there is a "the Lord" mentioned and that there is an "our Lord Jesus Christ" mentioned, also.

That would tell us that "the Lord", here, and in I John 2:2, is not an indication that it would refer to the "Lord Jesus Christ", as having anything to do with being the One having 'bought' them (and we may note that 'bought' is not in this verse)

There is a distinction being made between the two titles here in Jude 1:4.

The reason for both of them being Named is that it is saying that both of them and everything about them had been denied.

Jude 1:4, ". . . For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."

"the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" are separated, as different Persons, by Gill and the Bible, I believe:

"And denying the only Lord God; God the Father, who is the only sovereign Lord, both in providence and grace; and the only God, not to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, but in opposition to nominal and fictitious deities, or Heathen gods; and he was denied by these men, if not in words, yet in works:...

"And our Lord Jesus Christ; as his deity, or sonship, or humanity, or that he was the Messiah, or the alone Saviour, or his sacrifice, satisfaction, and righteousness; with respect to either of which he may be said to be denied doctrinally, as he is also practically, when men do not walk worthy of their profession of him; and both might be true of these men, and therefore their condemnation was righteous.

 

[Alan Gross]

1 John 5:10, ". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . ."

I can see the words meaning that those who ultimately deny God are lost, but I don't find any words anywhere in the Bible that are going to indicate where anyone had ever been saved and then lost.

Is that why you put this verse here.

I'm not able to instantly assume that the word 'bought' just jumps straight up out of the Bible and has to automatically demand it's meaning be 'bought' by the blood of Jesus, especially since there is no mention of anything close to that in those passages,

...anymore than I'd have to be forced just by reading the word 'world', without mixing it by faith, and comparing scripture with scripture, to rightly divide the word of truth, would undoubtedly, from just my fleshly reasoning, possess a meaning of "everyone without exception", and not even give it any other prayerful consideration as to what God wanted me to understand that He is really saying to me by it.

1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . .

In the Bible, Paul equates the word 'world, to mean 'the Gentiles' (for it's plain, intended meaning in a lot of places) and that is the sense in which John also uses the word 'world', repeatedly:

From: "He is the propitiation for our sins...also for the sins of the whole world." I John 2:2.

4. "For a better understanding of the sense of this text, it should be observed,
that the apostle John was a Jew, and writes to Jews, as Dr. Whitby himself observes,
and them chiefly, if not altogether, who were distinguished from the Gentiles,
commonly called the world: now, says the apostle,

"He is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, the sins of us Jews,
but also for the sins of the whole world, the Gentiles."

"Nothing is more common in the Jewish writings,
than to call the Gentiles aml[, the world; and ~lw[ lk, the whole world;

"and ~lw[x twmwa, the nations of the world;

"hence the apostle Paul calls them ko,smoj, the world, in Romans 11:12, 15.

"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles;
how much more their fulness?"

"For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,
what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

(Alan's note:
Paul here above, in Romans 11:12, 15,
EQUATES 'the world' with 'the Gentiles'.)

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

These folks denied the Lord Who had otherwise Providentially relieved, delivered, and rescued them, from temporal circumstances and locations, and trials, which that verse states by saying that the Lord had 'bought' them, carries the sense meaning that God the Father had expended some effort on them when he procured their escape from worse situations and circumstances and if they had His Grace in their hearts, as saved souls, anything like the Supernatural Grace He was expressing toward them, you would think that they would show their appreciation for it in their words and deeds/works, but they did just the opposite, when they acted out their lost condition, by their evil words and deeds/works.

Englishman's shows no rendering of the word 'bought', here, being translated 'brough out', so don't let me or think I'm trying to make up some new definition, but just that to me, these days, that might be sort of the way we'd say it.

"I am the parent who has done all these things that have brought you this far"
like, "I am the Lord Who has done all these temporal things by My Providence that have 'bought' you out of them, or "brought" you out of them this far(?) Dunno. Could be just like that, in our wording, more like the way we might say it.

My saying, "brought" with a price, is still to have the meaning something did get paid, without "bought" with a price having to mean that price paid would have had to have been talking about Jesus and His blood, in any way.

Having said this about that, those passages we've looked at are teaching us that to credit salvation to someone and then say that they can become lost and/or to say that Jesus died for everyone without exception, are the exact kind of things these lost men had been saying, which are denials of the Lord, and that by these kinds of words and by their works these men are said to have denied the Lord, and have never received salvation from Him.

 

[37818]

The purpose of this thread, 2 Peter 2:1 demonstrates the general redemption was God's provision.

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

 

[Silverhair]

@Alan Gross you are denying clear scripture that states that Christ is the savior for both those that believed and those that do not. {1 Timothy 4:10} His death was sufficient to cover the sins of all mankind. {1Jn 2:2} Notice what Romans 5:10-11 shows us: Jesus was the sin offering to God for the reconciliation of mankind to Himself. God, through Christ, reconciled the world to Himself {2 Corinthians 5:18} thus making it possible for man to be reconciled to God. {2 Corinthians 5:20} Man must submit to God's terms of mercy, faith in His risen son. {Philippians 3:9} God has removed all the obstacles to reconciliation which existed on his part. Now it remains that man should lay aside his hostility, abandon his sins, embrace the terms of mercy, and become in fact reconciled to God. {Galatians 3:26}

So we see that God has provided the means of salvation for all mankind, Christ has redeemed them out of the slave market so that they can be set free from the dominion of sin. Man must still trust in Christ Jesus before he is in fact set free form the power of sin. The atonement is unlimited in its extent but limited in its application. It was intended even for false teachers, it just isn't applied to them. Why? Because they resist the Holy Spirit (Acts of the Apostles 7:51) and therefore miss the grace of God (Hebrews 12:15), and are destroyed (1Thessalonians 5:3), for whoever does not believe in the Son of God has God's wrath continuing to abide on them (John 3:36).

 

[Alan Gross]

general redemption

may be

The purpose of this thread

however, it is not the purpose of

2 Peter 2:1

2 Peter 2:1

does not

demonstrate

any idea that

general redemption was God's provision.

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

is not said in 2 Peter 2 have redeemed anything or anybody, generally or otherwise.

The topic of salvation is not brought up or intended to hint at anything that could be imagined to refer to salvation.

It is touching to remember that Peter had himself denied the Lord, though indeed Peter's denial referred to the price JESUS PAID with HIS BLOOD, with which souls were bought; but his denial was at once followed by a deep and true repentance, AS A CHILD OF GOD.

Titus 3:10, "A man that is a heretic, (αἱρετικὸς)". Even denying the Lord that bought them; literally, as in the Revised Version, denying even the Master that bought them. The word for "Master" (δεσπότης) implies that the deniers stand to the Lord in the relation of slaves, and bondservants. The Lord had bought them; they were not their own, but bought with a price, of the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18; see also the parallel passage Jude 1:4).

The topic of salvation is not brought up or intended to hint at anything that could be imagined to refer to salvation.

Unless we use hermeneutics that we just go with the first split-second fleshly impulse we guess a word means and then immediately checking out, and thereby never bringing any of the other various elucidation under any consideration at all, when they could have been Illuminated by the Holy Spirit to reveal God's interpretation.

That's playing into the hands of the devil, though and being robbed by him of the meaning of God's words, then being used by him to repeat heresy.

 

[Silverhair]

The topic of salvation is not brought up or intended to hint at anything that could be imagined to refer to salvation.

The consequence of something or someone having been bought is that the buyer has the right of possession. In the redemptive work of Christ the idea is that Christ, by offering Himself for us as due satisfaction, freed us from our liability in paying it ourselves (1Co_6:20; 1Co_7:23; Gal_3:13; 2Pe_2:1; Rev_5:9; Rev_14:3-4). He, having paid the price, binds us to Himself. The Complete Word Study Dictionary

The false prophets did not set themselves up as opponents of Christianity. Far from it. They set themselves up as the finest fruits of Christian thinking; and so it was gradually and subtly that people were being lured away from God’s truth to other men’s private opinions, which is what heresy is.

The idea of Christ buying men for himself is one which runs through the whole New Testament.

 

[37818]

is not said in 2 Peter 2 have redeemed anything or anybody, generally or otherwise

Oh, so it doesn't mean "the Lord that bought them."

 

[Alan Gross]

of course, 2 Peter 2 means;

"the Lord that bought them."

The Bible means what it says!

But, it's our job to discern and determine, by the Holy Spirit, just exactly what it says, to start with, in order to arrive at what the Bible means when God is saying something that He wants us to understand.

It says, "the Lord", "bought", and "them".

So, what's it all about, ALFIE?

You believe and started the O.P. saying,

The purpose of this thread, 2 Peter 2:1 demonstrates the general redemption was God's provision.

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

The thread then tries to demonstrate that General Redemption was God's provision, despite the hardship imposed on itself by the word 'redemption', or any other word related to it, not being contained within that passage, that would restrict the meaning of 'bought', so as to absolutely associate that usage of the word 'bought', there, with salvation, in any way.

I believe and began by stating that in;

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .

is saying;

These folks denied the Lord Who had otherwise Providentially relieved, delivered, and rescued them, from temporal circumstances and locations, and trials, which that verse states by saying that the Lord had 'bought' them, and it carries the sense meaning that God the Father had expended some effort on them as He procured their escape from worse situations and circumstances

Then;

I'm not able to instantly assume that the word 'bought' just jumps straight up out of the Bible and has to automatically demand its meaning be 'bought' by the blood of Jesus, especially since there is no mention of anything close to that in those passages,

Because,?

". . . the Lord . . . "

is not said in 2 Peter 2 have redeemed anything or anybody, generally or otherwise.

The topic of salvation is not brought up or intended to hint at anything that could be imagined to refer to salvation.

The topic of salvation is not brought up in that passage or intended to hint at anything that could be imagined to refer to salvation, inevitably, certainly, naturally, unquestionably, undoubtedly, with no doubt.

How can I put this?

So, then, I went to Gill who added;

"...denying the Lord that bought them"; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word kuriov is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but despothv;

"and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants {i}, and which God has over all mankind;

{i} Vid. Ammonium peri omoiwn, in voce despothv.

"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 Jude 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:

And;

"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 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;"

 

[Alan Gross]

The bottom line is for me, is that by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, it is like you have heard from others plenty of times the same thing as what Gill says there;

"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 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 naught;"

Not only that but if Jesus died for the sins of everyone without exception, which is contradicted in so many other places, that would put the truthfulness of the Bible in question,

On the other hand, not one soul, without exception, would have ever gone to hell (when there is already a pot full of lost souls there, forever in torment lifting up their eyes and begging for a drop of water, at this moment) or would ever go to hell (when we know that some of the lost are not prayed for by Jesus, who He will tell to, "Depart from me", and then will "baptize" them with "fire").

So, while you are trying to force the meaning of 'bought' there, into supporting a General Redemption, you will say that I am trying to force the meaning of 'bought' there into my "system of Doctrine", such as The Doctrines of Grace.

Where we can look, first, however, is that we both should be able to agree that the Justice of God will always prohibit the execution of Double Jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy involves the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense, or as in the case where Jesus suffered the Hell of people and died as the result of their sins nailing Him to the cross;

Some would also try to say that Jesus not only died for those people He suffered Hell for and, therefore, would save,

But, when He died on the cross, Jesus suffered the same punishment of Eternal torment in Hell for the very same sins that a lost individual would still be prosecuted for in Hell, forever.

Holding a theory that "Jesus died for the punishment of Eternal Hell for lost souls and the same lost souls will have to suffer a duplicate and equivalent punishment in an Eternal Hell", would amount to having to commit Double Jeopardy, and therefore Un-Just, and not the way God operates, according to all His Thrice-Holy Attributes.

So, by starting out to demonstrate that a General Redemption was executed by Jesus on the cross, it is as if we are climbing out on the limb of a tree, and when we look back toward the tree, we see there is a gap in the limb, where the limb has a space between our end of the limb we are on and the tree and that they are no longer making any connection required to hold us up there.

The name of that particular gap between the limb and the tree, regarding these passages, would be called, "Double Jeopardy".

There couldn't be any gap, where we see an empty space left, between us having climbed out on a limb, with no connection to the tree where it was supposed to be attached, according to the Laws of Gravity, because we'd have fallen to the ground with our climb having come abruptly to an end.

And we might have had to go get something X-rayed.

In the same common sense way, there can't be any General Redemption that took place according to the Law of Double Jeopardy, in which as you've heard, "God does not punishment sin, twice", i.e., by punishing Jesus on the cross for the same sins that God then punishes a lost soul for, in the Lake of Fire, forever.

Trying to get out on that limb with a theory of General Redemption will always cause us to fall to the ground and always has many moons.

Sort of like, "If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be." Ecclesiastes 11:3

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'Payment God will not twice demand;
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.'

Augustus Toplady

 

[37818]

If Christ had not paid the sins for everyone, no one can know Christ paid one's own sins.

The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid everyone's sins.

1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ."

1 John 5:10, ". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . .'

John 3:36, ". . . He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. . . ."

2 Peter 2:1, ". . . But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . ."

Jude 1:4, ". . . For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."

 

[Alan Gross]

If Christ had not paid the sins for everyone, no one can know Christ paid one's own sins.

1. This is a man-made philosophy.
2. 37 has embraced some other man-made philosophies, at times.
3. Once, our 37 had a man-made philosophy in his mind, I have never seen a case in which he changed his position.
4. I would never want to be the one responsible for having changed 37's mind on some issue, since anything that might need changing would have to be accomplished by The Holy Spirit.
5. Why I still try to quote 37 scriptures like this one below, I do not know.

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God".

However, this scripture is true, because it is in God's word, and it teaches that there is an Assurance of Salvation that can be known, experientially, by the ones whom it calls, "children of God", when, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with" their "spirit".

Whether General Redemption was true, or not, and those that taught General Redemption actually also thought anyone could ever really know that they were saved, and if so, that they also thought they could have any Assurance of Salvation, and not have the belief that they could still lose it, Romans 8:16 would still be true.

In the same way, Romans 8:16 is true, granted a Limited Atonement is true, with its proponents actually believing God's children can definitely know that they are saved Eternally and that they have Full Assurance of Salvation, and don't have any belief of there being a possibility for them of ever losing it, under any circumstances.

The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins,

One can know Christ paid for one's own sins is a fact.

However,

The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins

is irrelevant to any idea that tries to advance the notion;

Christ paid everyone's sins.

much less, for it to be able to be seen as some;

proof

Christ paid everyone's sins.

1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins:

The sins of the Jews, as it was a Jew speaking, also, and it was Jews being spoken to, who are the ones referred to in that verse as, "our".

"and not for ours only",

With "ours", again, referring to them being Jews.

but also for the sins of the whole world. . . .

So, we have that verse saying,
"our sins" + "the sins of the whole world without exception"?

Wouldn't the sins of the Jews have already been included if they just said,
"the sins of the whole world without exception"?

And btw, why didn't they say, "the sins of the whole world without exception", if that's what it is supposed to mean?

And btw, they didn't say, "the sins of the whole world without exception".

That is just not said at all. Period.

Is it?

The group of people that existed, as opposed to the Jews, were the Gentiles,
and the Gentiles are all over the place in secular writing of the time and throughout the New Testament are often mentioned and referred to by the name, "the world".

The only thing more prevalent than those occurrences are the times at which the Bible teaches equality with regard to the Jews and the Gentiles and their identical experiences with regard to salvation, OF WHICH THIS IS JUST ONE MORE TIME THAT SIMILARITY, with regard to the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles, IS BEING BROUGHT OUT AND TAUGHT.

By way of commentary, we should see from that verse,

"Our sins", as Jews,
were Atoned for by Christ,

in exactly the same way that "the sins of" the Elect children of God,
chosen from among "the whole world" of the Gentiles
were Atoned for by Christ.

1 John 5:10, ". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . .'

No relevance(?)

John 3:36, ". . . He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. . . ."

While "believeth" is not another way of salvation, this verse is an argument for a child of God being able to know that they are a child of God.

That is the purpose of that verse.

Has that individual, in the past tense, after they have been saved, shown evidence of having, "believeth on the Son" which would include the historical facts regarding Jesus being the Son, that He was Virgin born, lived a Perfect Life and died for the sins of His people on the cross, was buried, and rose again.

Have they already been saved and granted repentance and faith in the New Birth and that it is by the Spiritually Empowering SUPERNATURAL LIFE that is now in them, that they are saying it was on that "Son", as their Savior they are talking about when they, "believeth on the Son"?

Well, then, the Bible says it is they who "hath everlasting life".

2 Peter 2:1, ". . . But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. . . ."

1a. To add to the scripture, and say "that bought" is equivalent in meaning to,
"making a propitiation for our sins", similar to I John 2:2, is just another man-made philosophy, as in 1.), above.

Jude 1:4, ". . . For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ."

Those lost souls who had always been lost and who remained lost, because they were among those "who were before of old (from Eternity Past) ordained to this condemnation", showed that they were lost by being, "ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness", and yet also totally confirmed they were lost by not only denying The Lord, the Bible says, but in addition to that denial, they also denied everything about "our Lord Jesus Christ", including the salvation He had Accomplished for the children God had given Him.

There is certainly no mention in Jude 1:4 of anything that had been "bought" in any way, at any time.

 

[37818]

1. This is a man-made philosophy.

What is "this" man made philosophy?

2. 37 has embraced some other man-made philosophies, at times.

Everyone has.

So, we have that verse saying,
"our sins" + "the sins of the whole world without exception"?

You are saying "without exception."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God".

And this truth does not remove 1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ." A truth without which, none of us could have grounds to believe Christ paid for our sins.

Question. Who is calling God a liar and why in 1 John 5:10?

 

[Alan Gross]

What is "this" man made philosophy?

By saying that life comes from non-life just throws a man-made philosophy that is desired to be proven into an otherwise true statement.

To 'prove' 'non'-life as the origin of life, 'non' is simply inserted into the true statement, "life comes from life", and the lie, "life comes from 'non'-life" is invented.

'Non' is the man-made philosophy required to be added to an otherwise true statement, however by logic and observation, the resulting man-made philosophy is not only not proven, it is a total invention at face value that proves it to be a lie.

+1 does not equal -1+1.

'Life +1' does not come from 'non -1 life +1'.

Lies are man-made philosophies that are also false man-made philosophies.

If Christ had not paid the sins for everyone, no one can know Christ paid one's own sins.

Adding the man-made philosophy 'everyone' to an otherwise true statement that "If Christ had not paid the sins...,
no one can know Christ paid one's own sins",
may make that true statement a lie, and by adding it does not make that new statement when 'everyone' is placed into it, true.

It is simply an invention, adding a philosophy in an attempt to prove something, in a way that is fake, disingenuous, and false on it's surface.

The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid everyone's sins.

Again, this statement without 'everyone' added is true.

"The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid ....sins."

That statement can not be assumed to remain true simply by adding into it a desired result.

You'd be just as well off by trying to say, "The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid for everyone's life to come from a rock."

Just because paper will sit and let you write things on it doesn't make them true.

1. This is a man-made philosophy.

"Everyone" is a man-made philosophy attempting to be added to otherwise true statements, as if to prove that the truth of those statements would still remain self-evident, and that eventuality could certainly never be granted, without question.

The fact that Christ died for any one person's sin, can be perfectly known by that one person, with absolute assurance, that they are saved forever, with the total number of people and their sins Christ died for, whether for just that one, or more than one, being irrelevant.

The fact that Christ died for their sin can be known by one or any number of people, with the total number of people and their sins that Christ must have died for to include all people without exception is not necessary.

The fact that Christ died for their sin can be known by one or any number of people, when the Holy Spirit bears witness with the saved person's spirit that they are a child of God.
...
Knowing you, 37, there must be something having to do with what you would say is the way a person is said to be saved, in the first place, for there to be some necessity you have for insisting Jesus died for 'everyone' in order for that to be a part of the appeal to lost sinners and the prospect of them them being able to come to know that they think they are saved(?)

What would that be, if so?

 

[Silverhair]

By saying that life comes from non-life just throws a man-made philosophy that is desired to be proven into an otherwise true statement.

To 'prove' 'non'-life as the origin of life, 'non' is simply inserted into the true statement, "life comes from life", and the lie, "life comes from 'non'-life" is invented.

'Non' is the man-made philosophy required to be added to an otherwise true statement, however by logic and observation, the resulting man-made philosophy is not only not proven, it is a total invention at face value that proves it to be a lie.

+1 does not equal -1+1.

'Life +1' does not come from 'non -1 life +1'.

Lies are man-made philosophies that are also false man-made philosophies.



Adding the man-made philosophy 'everyone' to an otherwise true statement that "If Christ had not paid the sins...,
no one can know Christ paid one's own sins",
may make that true statement a lie, and by adding it does not make that new statement when 'everyone' is placed into it, true.

It is simply an invention, adding a philosophy in an attempt to prove something, in a way that is fake, disingenuous, and false on it's surface.



Again, this statement without 'everyone' added is true.

"The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid ....sins."

That statement can not be assumed to remain true simply by adding into it a desired result.

You'd be just as well off by trying to say, "The fact that one can know Christ paid one's own sins, is proof Christ paid for everyone's life to come from a rock."

Just because paper will sit and let you write things on it doesn't make them true.



"Everyone" is a man-made philosophy attempting to be added to otherwise true statements, as if to prove that the truth of those statements would still remain self-evident, and that eventuality could certainly never be granted, without question.

The fact that Christ died for any one person's sin, can be perfectly known by that one person, with absolute assurance, that they are saved forever, with the total number of people and their sins Christ died for, whether for just that one, or more than one, being irrelevant.

The fact that Christ died for their sin can be known by one or any number of people, with the total number of people and their sins that Christ must have died for to include all people without exception is not necessary.

The fact that Christ died for their sin can be known by one or any number of people, when the Holy Spirit bears witness with the saved person's spirit that they are a child of God.
...
Knowing you, 37, there must be something having to do with what you would say is the way a person is said to be saved, in the first place, for there to be some necessity you have for insisting Jesus died for 'everyone' in order for that to be a part of the appeal to lost sinners and the prospect of them them being able to come to know that they think they are saved(?)

What would that be, if so?

What non-life are you referring to? The non-life view come from your Calvinist philosophy not from the bible.