the field

Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

The treasure is most definitely the saints of God the field is most definitely the world. He bought every one in the world. And to prove this:

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

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.

Apparently this goes nicely with the fact that everyone's name starts out in the book of life and in order to have it removed you must choose to have it so. "Denying the Lord that bought them"

Sort of sounds like the Biblical Universalism that Neal Punt advocates, and that I am looking into.

Ken

I'm not saying that everyone is going to be saved.

I am saying that everyone(saved and lost) has been bought by the blood of Jesus; but those that "deny the Lord that bought them" are condemned forever.

Hebrews 10:28-29 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Just wondering if you agree with the following written by Neal Punt - not the old-fashioned Universalism but what is called Biblical Universalism -

BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience or in gospel presentation.

Biblical Universalism is based upon these three biblical facts:

1) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Chapter 3).

2) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (Chapter 4).

3) We must accept the so-called "universalistic" texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (Chapter 5).

Chapter references are to the book SO ALSO IN CHRIST.

[Matthew 13:44] The treasure is most definitely the saints of God the field is most definitely the world. He bought every one in the world. And to prove this: [1 Corinthians 6:20]
[2 Peter 2:1] Apparently this goes nicely with the fact that everyone's name starts out in the book of life and in order to have it removed you must choose to have it so. "Denying the Lord that bought them"

Click to expand...

Nice "roundabout" reasoning. However, for the sake of sound biblical interpretation, you must keep things in context. Whether one is a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian" or "none of the above" - you must keep things in context.

Let's take your reasoning a step further. I'll use your line of reasoning to prove you are a "Calvinist." You state that the "treasure" in Mt. 13:44 pertains to the saints. In Mt. 13:45-46 it speaks of a merchant (Christ, in your line of reasoning) who found "one pearl of great price." While he had been seeking beautiful pearls, he sold everything he had to buy just that one pearl. The one pearl is the Church. He didn't purchase all the pearls in the world, just one. This verse teaches "Limited Atonement." Wow!

Quoting 1 Cor. and 2 Pet. does not prove that the verse is teaching this, either. The verse in 1 Cor. is dealing with sanctification. The verse in 2 Pet. is dealing with OT false prophets. They were not "bought" by Christ at the cross, but they were "redeemed" with all of Israel in the Exodus. See what Peter is quoting. If you really want to tackle a "Calvinist" on the issue of Particular Redemption, go read John Owen's 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ'.

BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience or in gospel presentation

Click to expand...

I do not believe this in entirety

#1 Not all are elect in Christ

Click to expand...

Election is based on foreknowledge, not that God has willed them to be elect.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Damnation is based on rejection of God, not that God willed them to be damned.

John 3:17-21 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

I believe that a person is born in sin and will face condemnation if they do not accept the blood sacrifice. However, the Lord must give them a day of visitation in which they make a choice to believe or not believe. Based on their choice they do or do not go on to condemnation.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I believe the Lord never condemned anyone without them making a conscious choice to reject Him. Therefore I believe that the Lord did not will them to be lost.


Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

However, I do believe that there are only 2 groups of people who have ever lived: saved and lost; so basically I do believe that all the people who do not reject Christ are elect(according to foreknowledge), and all who do reject Christ are not.(according to foreknowledge)

Quoting 1 Cor. and 2 Pet. does not prove that the verse is teaching this, either. The verse in 1 Cor. is dealing with sanctification. The verse in 2 Pet. is dealing with OT false prophets. They were not "bought" by Christ at the cross, but they were "redeemed" with all of Israel in the Exodus. See what Peter is quoting. If you really want to tackle a "Calvinist" on the issue of Particular Redemption, go read John Owen's 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ'.

Click to expand...

You twisted the scriptures in 2 Peter. It is talking to lost people in the future tense.

2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were{past tense} false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be{future tense} false teachers among you, who privily shall bring{future tense} in damnable heresies, even denying{future tense} the Lord that bought them, and bring{future tense} upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow{future tense} their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

You need to pay closer attention to detail. Particularly as to exactly when the scripture switches from past tense to future tense. These things are the minor infractions that lead to grievous error.

"When I was a young preacher, a Baptist preacher who was a good man, but Arminian in his theology, preached a sermon on election. He said, 'Election is according to the foreknowledge of God. God foreknew that certain men would repent and believe. And having seen that they would repent and believe, he elected them.' When he got through, I told him that the New Testament use of 'foreknowledge' was almost equivalent to predestination and that any Greek scholar would tell him so and that election was not based on any foreseen goodness in man, but that repentance and faith proceed from election and not election from them."

B. H. Carroll, Founder & First President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Yes, you are correct, I need to pay more attention to detail. So, with that in mind:

1) St. Peter is comparing false teachers (NT) to false prophets (OT). The corresponding Hebrew word for the one employed here means any sort of deliverance / redemption. The Jews in the OT were considered bought by virtue of their deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:5-6).

You twisted the scriptures in 2 Peter.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I just didn't take the time to be clear enough.

2) In 2 Peter 2:1 the word used for "Lord" most likely does not refer to Jesus Christ, but God the Father. Why state this? First, because of context. In the following verses, God the Father is spoken of, not the Son. Second, the Greek word for Lord used here (despotes) is never used of Christ, but only of the Father. Therefore, it is unlikely that the atonement is in view.

3) Next, the "purchase" here could refer to deliverance by God's goodness from the defilement of the world in idolatry. The word used to say they were "bought" can be used to denote any kind of deliverance, and so does not necessarily indicate that they had been purchased by the blood of Christ. This would definitely fit into the context of St. Peter's epistle. St. Peter affirms the deliverance to be "escaping the pollution of the world" by the knowledge of the gospel, but no mention is made of being washed in Christ's blood. There may be individuals who reform their lives periodically, but soon return to their old habits. It is possible that St. Peter is addressing their outward appearance and profession. In other words, the verse could be implicitly translated "denying the Master who [they declare] bought them."

4) There is no mention of Christ's blood here. Other NT passages dealing with the atonement / cross make reference to the blood of Christ.

Hope you find this a bit more helpful. Please pardon my prior sloppiness.

[ November 22, 2002, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

2) In 2 Peter 2:1 the word used for "Lord" most likely does not refer to Jesus Christ, but God the Father. Why state this? First, because of context. In the following verses, God the Father is spoken of, not the Son. Second, the Greek word for Lord used here (despotes) is never used of Christ, but only of the Father. Therefore, it is unlikely that the atonement is in view.

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's[Greek 1203 despotes] use, and prepared unto every good work.

Here we find this greek word translated "Master"
You have to speculate to say it only means God the Father particularly seeing how Jesus said:

Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

The greek word for Lord in 2Peter 2:1 could also refer to a husband, and I know Christ is also referred to as a husband.

Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

3) Next, the "purchase" here could refer to deliverance by God's goodness from the defilement of the world in idolatry. The word used to say they were "bought" can be used to denote any kind of deliverance, and so does not necessarily indicate that they had been purchased by the blood of Christ. This would definitely fit into the context of St. Peter's epistle. St. Peter affirms the deliverance to be "escaping the pollution of the world" by the knowledge of the gospel, but no mention is made of being washed in Christ's blood. There may be individuals who reform their lives periodically, but soon return to their old habits. It is possible that St. Peter is addressing their outward appearance and profession. In other words, the verse could be implicitly translated "denying the Master who [they declare] bought them."

Click to expand...

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[Greek agorazo]them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed[Greek agorazo] us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

'despotes' is not used to refer to Christ in these verses (Matthew). It is not used at all in these verses.

[ November 22, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's[Greek 1203 despotes] use, and prepared unto every good work.

Click to expand...

2 Tim. 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God..."
2:19 - "Nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."
2:22 - "...those who call on the Lord..."

Context: God the Father, not Christ the Son

The greek word for Lord in 2Peter 2:1 could also refer to a husband, and I know Christ is also referred to as a husband [Ephesians 5:22-32]

Click to expand...

Now you're really stretching things. The word used in 2 Peter 2:1 is not the same word used in Ephesians 5. Also, the word 'despotes' is not used in Ephesians 5.

Peter does use the same root word in 2 Pet. 2:1 that John does in Rev. 5:9. It is the same root, but not the word. And, remember that context always rules interpretation (one reason "word studies" can quickly go awry - 'dunamis' anyone?).

When Peter speaks of redemption due to the work of Christ, he uses 'lutrono' - not 'agoradzo'. 'lutrono' always refers to this type of "purchase." Had Peter used 'lutrono' in 2 Peter 2:1 - then this would indeed be a great difficulty for those holding to "particular redemption."

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The greek word for Lord in 2Peter 2:1 could also refer to a husband, and I know Christ is also referred to as a husband [Ephesians 5:22-32]

Click to expand...

Now you're really stretching things. The word used in 2 Peter 2:1 is not the same word used in Ephesians 5. Also, the word 'despotes' is not used in Ephesians 5. </font>[/QUOTE]I never said it was used in Ephesians 5. My point was:

Strong's Greek Dictionary #1203 despotes-perhaps from 1210 and posis(a husband); an absolute ruler

Greek 1210 deo
a primary verb; to bind (in various applications,
literally or figuratively):--bind, be in bonds, knit, tie,
wind.

despotes could speak of Jesus Christ as much as it could speak of the Father, you speculate that it could not.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

John 10:27-30 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The way I see it, you are attemting to separate Jesus and God in your attempts to prove that 2 Peter2:1 is not talking about the fact that lost people were also "bought with a price."

I give another verse to support this doctrine as truth:

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

despotes could speak of Jesus Christ as much as it could speak of the Father, you speculate that it could not.

Click to expand...

No speculation. The term 'despotes' is NEVER used in the NT to refer to Christ. When it speaks of Jesus Christ as Lord 'kurios' is used.

Peter does use the same root word in 2 Pet. 2:1 that John does in Rev. 5:9. It is the same root, but not the word. And, remember that context always rules interpretation (one reason "word studies" can quickly go awry - 'dunamis' anyone?).

When Peter speaks of redemption due to the work of Christ, he uses 'lutrono' - not 'agoradzo'. 'lutrono' always refers to this type of "purchase." Had Peter used 'lutrono' in 2 Peter 2:1 - then this would indeed be a great difficulty for those holding to "particular redemption."

I have no idea what "particular redemption" entails. I don't think it's mentioned in that exact wording in the Bible, therefore I'm not sure what to do with it.

Anyway, that aside, I go again to Revelation:

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Surely you would agree that the Greek word agorazo used here as "hast redeemed" was used in this context to speak of those saints who were bought, purchased, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

You play an excellent game of dodge point but I know this same word(agorazo) is used in 2Peter 2:1 ("denying the Lord that bought{agorazo} them"), and in the context it speaks of lost people

agorazo

from 58; properly, to go to market, i.e. (by
implication) to purchase; specially, to redeem:--buy,
redeem.

No speculation. The term 'despotes' is NEVER used in the NT to refer to Christ. When it speaks of Jesus Christ as Lord 'kurios' is used.

Click to expand...

Let me approach from a different angle.

Can Jesus ever be separated from God the Father?

What about 2Corinthians 5

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Ok you want to go with God the Father, then God the Father it is. So 2 Peter2:1 tells us that God the Father "bought" the lost man.

You play an excellent game of dodge point but I know this same word(agorazo) is used in 2Peter 2:1 ("denying the Lord that bought{agorazo} them"), and in the context it speaks of lost people

Click to expand...

Not playing dodge.

The same word is not used. Look at the Greek itself. However, the same root is used. And, as stated before, context determines usage. Have you studied Greek, or are you just looking at a Strong's Concordance?

Not denying that it speaks of lost people in 2 Peter 2:1. Denying that Peter is using "bought" in sense of "substitutionary atonement."

No speculation. The term 'despotes' is NEVER used in the NT to refer to Christ. When it speaks of Jesus Christ as Lord 'kurios' is used.

Click to expand...

Let me approach from a different angle.

Can Jesus ever be separated from God the Father?

What about 2Corinthians 5

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Ok you want to go with God the Father, then God the Father it is. So 2 Peter2:1 tells us that God the Father "bought" the lost man.