2 Peter 2:1 Cannot be referring to a saved believer

[Silverhair]

I will address the bolded statements.
First, #2. God doesn't give humans the option to save themselves. Why? Because humans always choose rebellion against God in favor of being their own ruler. All we have to do is watch our children work hard to be rulers in the family. This is the same thing all humans do to God. Note that God tells us that he only disciplines his children (Hebrews 12) not illegitimate children. Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 tell us that God chooses to adopt his children. God never says that he waits for humans to choose him.
Second, the ability to have faith is precisely because God chose them. Note that in Ephesians 2 and Romans 9 that choice is done while we were still dead in sin. Therefore we didn't choose God.
Third, re-read the story of Noah. God chose Noah. Noah didn't choose God. God saved Noah by choosing him. Noah was given faith to believe an unbelievable truth, that God would destroy the world and Noah would be spared by building a boat.

Silverhair, you are very adept and praising humans while downplaying God. Are you even aware how humanist you are?

Are you even aware of how anti bible you are? I doubt it as you are stuck in your determinism. The last thing that you want is for the truth to shine through into your life as that would require you to actually trust what the bible says.
The truth will set you free and I do hope that you will find it.

 

[Silverhair]

You need to read the whole Bible, not cherry pick verses.

This from a Calvinist, really.

 

[Reformed1689]

This from a Calvinist, really.

Yep, really.

 

[AustinC]

Are you even aware of how anti bible you are? I doubt it as you are stuck in your determinism. The last thing that you want is for the truth to shine through into your life as that would require you to actually trust what the bible says.
The truth will set you free and I do hope that you will find it.

Since I often provide passages of scripture it is disingenuous of you to make such a silly claim.

 

[1689Dave]

Another approach to proving limited atonement. In Hebrews 6 the writer tells us that in order to save any who fall away Christ would need to be crucified all over again. This means his death paid only for the elect and was not sufficient to save all as many believe. Why would he pay for all and need to pay for them again if his death was sufficient for all? If it was, all would be saved. So this shows that Jesus died for a specific number and nothing more than that. And that God never intended to save those who fall away.

This as I see it refutes Amyraldianism (4 point Calvinism) as well as Arminianism and Unitarianism.

 

[MB]

If truly Christian then just how do they fall away. To me this term of falling away is before one is saved. they are just starting to believe.. I've been saved for 63 years and I have never stopped believing in Christ. I'm not sinless yet I die to sin everyday. It would seem to me that if a man falls away ignoring God completely then they were never saved in the first place. We are His sheep if one is missing the Lord goes looking for him and brings him back into the fold. We can't fall away if we truly Love the Lord. Love is not like a light bulb that we can turn on and off at will Love that is real love never goes away. It's what makes man lonely when they loose there spouse. I really believe if I didn't have Jesus I would die from loneliness. There would be no reason to live any longer..
MB

 

[Van]

First of all you are not factual about what I said. I said your meaning is not found in Scripture.

I can't grasp a point that is not actually in Scripture.

Calvinists even rewrite their own posts...

Here, again, is what I actually said:

Anyone can say "that is not in scripture."
He claims "even denying the Master who bought them" is no where to be found. This verse (2 Peter 2:1) indicates some are bought but not given, however no Calvinists can grasp the concept.​

 

[AustinC]

Calvinists even rewrite their own posts...

Here, again, is what I actually said:

Anyone can say "that is not in scripture."
He claims "even denying the Master who bought them" is no where to be found. This verse (2 Peter 2:1) indicates some are bought but not given, however no Calvinists can grasp the concept.​

How do you support "some are bought but not given" from 2 Peter 2:1?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

The term "bought" is not referring to "redeemed." It is not salvific in this passage. It is reminding us of persons like Judas Iscariot who claim fellowship, but are not redeemed by the blood of Christ. It reminds us that tares are among the wheat in the Masters field.

 

[Van]

How do you support "some are bought but not given" from 2 Peter 2:1?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

The term "bought" is not referring to "redeemed." It is not salvific in this passage. It is reminding us of persons like Judas Iscariot who claim fellowship, but are not redeemed by the blood of Christ. It reminds us that tares are among the wheat in the Masters field.

As I said, folks, the concept of bought but not given is beyond the capacity of any Calvinist to even comprehend. Although I have supported the concept, the Calvinist asks how do I support it.
Did anyone say "bought" in 2 Peter 2:1 refers to being "redeemed?" Nope.
Did the Calvinist quote where I clearly stated what "bought" referred to? Nope
Why? Because no Calvinist can grasp the concept. They all seem to have been blinded by their indoctrination into the false doctrine of Calvinism.

 

[Silverhair]

Another approach to proving limited atonement. In Hebrews 6 the writer tells us that in order to save any who fall away Christ would need to be crucified all over again. This means his death paid only for the elect and was not sufficient to save all as many believe. Why would he pay for all and need to pay for them again if his death was sufficient for all? If it was, all would be saved. So this shows that Jesus died for a specific number and nothing more than that. And that God never intended to save those who fall away.

This as I see it refutes Amyraldianism (4 point Calvinism) as well as Arminianism and Unitarianism.

Now that is so far out there that only a Calvinist thinks that holds water. You are really reaching for something to support your view. Try again this one fails.

 

[Yeshua1]

yes, but you cannot take just one verse!

Even though it was inspired by the Lord as truth?

 

[Yeshua1]

But under your determinism God controls all the desires of man then it is really God that is making the choice for them to chose wrong. So your determinism makes God the only free agent and thus responsible for all the actions of man good or bad.

No, as God allows them to have what they really do desire!

 

[Yeshua1]

This might be true if man were neutral, neither good nor evil. But, the Bible is clear that man is by nature radically corrupt. So, given no influence by God, mankind would be on a pathway of destruction, becoming more and more corrupt. We see this before the flood. In that situation, God chose Noah and his family. He destroyed everyone else.
We see this at Babel. In that situation God chose to mercifully and kindly separate mankind by giving them various languages. Then, God chose one person out of all those groups to call his people. From those people, whom he purchased, we see God choosing people to do his will as not all Israel had faith.
In every situation it is God who breaks in and keeps men from continuing on in their radical downward spiral of corruption and destruction.
Can you not grasp this truth?

Lost sinners prefer to remain in their own darkness!

 

[Yeshua1]

and with all deception of wickedness for those who are being lost, because they didn’t receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Because of this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be judged who didn’t believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness - 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

They CHOOSE!

Yes, the Lord permits them to choose their desires, which will be always to reject Lord jesus to save them from their sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinists even rewrite their own posts...

Here, again, is what I actually said:

Anyone can say "that is not in scripture."
He claims "even denying the Master who bought them" is no where to be found. This verse (2 Peter 2:1) indicates some are bought but not given, however no Calvinists can grasp the concept.​

Again Van, we Calvinists are NOT rejecting the scriptures, just yours and MB wrong viewpoints on them!

 

[AustinC]

How do you support "some are bought but not given" from 2 Peter 2:1?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

The term "bought" is not referring to "redeemed." It is not salvific in this passage. It is reminding us of persons like Judas Iscariot who claim fellowship, but are not redeemed by the blood of Christ. It reminds us that tares are among the wheat in the Masters field.

As I said, folks, the concept of bought but not given is beyond the capacity of any Calvinist to even comprehend. Although I have supported the concept, the Calvinist asks how do I support it.
Did anyone say "bought" in 2 Peter 2:1 refers to being "redeemed?" Nope.
Did the Calvinist quote where I clearly stated what "bought" referred to? Nope
Why? Because no Calvinist can grasp the concept. They all seem to have been blinded by their indoctrination into the false doctrine of Calvinism.

First, Van, address me directly or stop replying.
Second, you don't answer my question. Here it is for a second time.

How do you support "some are bought but not given" from 2 Peter 2:1?

Third, Van, directly answer me and my question. You specifically said, "some are bought, but not given." Please exegete 2 Peter 2:1 and show us how the text makes that specific argument.

I appreciate when you speak directly to me and to the question.

 

[MB]

Again Van, we Calvinists are NOT rejecting the scriptures, just yours and MB wrong viewpoints on them!

You reject the truth of scripture all the time. If you didn't you would not be a Calvinist.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

You reject the truth of scripture all the time. If you didn't you would not be a Calvinist.
MB

Do we Calvinists hold to a false Gospel then, are we even saved then?

 

[MB]

No, as God allows them to have what they really do desire!

God does not allow man to sin. All Calvinist wish to blame God for there sins. An allowance is an endorsement. God approved.The God I worship does not sin.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

God does not allow man to sin. All Calvinist wish to blame God for there sins. An allowance is an endorsement. God approved.The God I worship does not sin.
MB

If God is not allowing them to sin, is He causing them to sin then?