• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

37818

Well-Known Member
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?

If one believes Christ paid for ones sins, it will be because that is what one understands Holy Scriptures to teach.

So if one really thinks Christ did not pay this for everyone, how is one to know one's self was not excluded?

By not really believing that.

Titus 1:2.
1 John 2:2.
1 John 5:9-13.
 

Alan Gross

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

Everyone has.

That doesn't mean that if we have gone with a philosophy of reading the Bible as if it is any other book, or the philosophy that the first impulse we have as to what it may mean eliminates any and all other possible meanings, or that if have adopted those philosophies or others that they can't be abandoned for the Glory of God.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
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(?)

And there we have it:
So if one really thinks Christ did not pay this for everyone, how is one to know one's self was not excluded?

However:
1. This is a man-made philosophy.

Nevertheless:
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.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
How can one, before believing in Christ as one's Savior, believe Christ paid for one's sins, if one thinks Christ had not paid for everyone's sin?

Romans 5:8, ". . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ."
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jude 1:4 NASB
For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [fn]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Probably off topic, but in Jude 4, the "Master" and the "Lord" refer to the same person, Jesus, rather than to two people, the mistaken view of those who deny the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar.

Thus, given the parallel nature of 2 Peter 2:1 concerning context, the conclusion should be that both verses refer to God the Son, our Lord Jesus.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
How can one, before believing in Christ as one's Savior, believe Christ paid for one's sins, if one thinks Christ had not paid for everyone's sin?

Ah, Ha! So, that is the self-defeating, self-imposed, man-made philosophy, that Satan has used on your flesh, to keep you stuck in his stronghold of deception!

Thank you, for sharing!

I think I need to be doing some praying for you, buddy.

I shall, therefore, step into that Realm.

I'M TELLING GOD ON YOU!!!!
 

37818

Well-Known Member
New Jude 1:4 NASB
For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [fn]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Versus
KJV,
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

Well-Known Member
who were before of old ordained to this condemnation

Are you trying to say something, other than these men were lost, and always had been lost, and always stayed lost,
"who were before of old ordained to this condemnation"?,

which is:
THE DECREE OF REJECTION, OF SOME ANGELS, AND OF SOME MEN.

I make use of the word “rejection” in this article, partly because it is a scriptural phrase and ascribed to God,

"and partly because it is that act of God which gives the name of reprobate to any (who have been "rejected", as those who had been "rejected", in Jude 1:4, spoken of those, "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation";

"and is the foundation of that character, reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them, (Jer 6:30)

"and (The REJECTION, OF SOME ANGELS, AND OF SOME MEN) stands opposed to election, (1 Sam. 15:26, 10:24)

"but chiefly because the other word reprobation, through wrong and frightful ideas being affixed to it, carries in it with many a sound harsh and disagreeable;

"or otherwise they are of the same signification, and no amendment is made in the doctrine or sense of it, by using the one instead of the other.

"This doctrine of rejecting some angels and some men from the divine favor is spoken of but sparingly in scripture, yet clearly and plainly; though chiefly left to be concluded from that of election."

They didn't know the Lord in salvation and had always been guilty of and always continued:
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ

...because they had been, were, and remained:
ungodly men
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Are you trying to say something, other than these men were lost, and always had been lost, and always stayed lost,
"who were before of old ordained to this condemnation"?,

which is:
THE DECREE OF REJECTION, OF SOME ANGELS, AND OF SOME MEN.

I make use of the word “rejection” in this article, partly because it is a scriptural phrase and ascribed to God,

"and partly because it is that act of God which gives the name of reprobate to any (who have been "rejected", as those who had been "rejected", in Jude 1:4, spoken of those, "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation";

"and is the foundation of that character, reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them, (Jer 6:30)

"and (The REJECTION, OF SOME ANGELS, AND OF SOME MEN) stands opposed to election, (1 Sam. 15:26, 10:24)

"but chiefly because the other word reprobation, through wrong and frightful ideas being affixed to it, carries in it with many a sound harsh and disagreeable;

"or otherwise they are of the same signification, and no amendment is made in the doctrine or sense of it, by using the one instead of the other.

"This doctrine of rejecting some angels and some men from the divine favor is spoken of but sparingly in scripture, yet clearly and plainly; though chiefly left to be concluded from that of election."

They didn't know the Lord in salvation and had always been guilty of and always continued:


...because they had been, were, and remained:
Jude 1:4 identifies "the Lord that bought them, . . ." in 2 Peter 2:1." There is no other Biblical identity for who "the Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1 is to be.
 
Last edited:

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Jude 1:4 identifies "the Lord that bought them, . . ." in 2 Peter 2:1." There is no other Biblical identity for who "the Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1 is to be.

You, as is your custom, leave you post without any pertinent content, as if you're scared to say you believe anything, really.

Twice you say "The Lord" is identified. So, we can just randomly guess what that identity is supposed to be out of everything that exists, in order to know what you are talking about?

No one has ever denied "The Lord" there !means God the Father.

No one has ever denied that "The Lord" in both passages means God the Father and that in Jude 1:4, "The Lord", is purposely distinguished as having a separate identity from, "our Lord Jesus Christ", in the English and in the Greek.

No one has ever denied that the lost men are specifically said in Jude 1:4 have denied our Lord Jesus Christ.

No one have ever denied that "The Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1, "bought", them.

Does that cover all the reasons you have for writing that reply?

No, because you set back and think in your head what you desire what you are going to believe and then post things where everyone else is supposed to connect several things from a jumbled bunch of word meanings and parts of verses that you're combining in your imagination, without ever reading other replies or the Bible, and if so, precious little, don't you?

Is that it?

Then comes your cryptic responses you want to say resolve the difficulties with your theology?

And sure enough.

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

Here are some examples of what "bought" meant as if it was used in other passage in the Bible, referring to men and women, and other associated words including, "sold"(men and women), "buy"(men and women), "your possession(men and women), "sell"(men and women), redeemed"(men and women), "redeem"(men and women), "redemption"(men and women), "hired"(men and women), "price"(for men and women), and "an inheritance", are shown to mean from their usage in the Bible.

No allusion to anything that could establish any of them to be associated with Eternal Salvation, can be seen to be expressed by their usage, including, "bought", "possession", or "redeemed", "redeem", or "redemption", "price", "an inheritance".

And all of those refer to these same men and women who are said to be the ones, in Lev 25:55 - "For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

The were "brought forth", by the same Lord in similar language to 2 Peter 2:1, where it says, "the Lord God that bought them.

That is how the Bible uses those words, although the men that crept in unawares where not "brought forth", or "bought", as specifically being among those who'd been in Egypt.

Not unlike, Lev 25:50 - "And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

Lev 25:42 - For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

Lev 25:44 - Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Lev 25:45 - Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Lev 25:47 - And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:

Lev 25:48 - After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

Lev 25:49 - Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

Lev 25:51 - If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for.

Lev 25:52 - And if there remain but few years unto the year of jubile, then he shall count with him, and according unto his years shall he give him again the price of his redemption.

Lev 25:53 - And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight.

Lev 25:54 - And if he be not redeemed in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubile, both he, and his children with him.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Jude 1:4 identifies "the Lord that bought them, . . ." in 2 Peter 2:1." There is no other Biblical identity for who "the Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1 is to be.

Pick one, from among the excerpts from this thread;

'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.

"...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 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:

"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;"

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.

"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.

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,
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Jude 1:4 identifies "the Lord that bought them, . . ." in 2 Peter 2:1." There is no other Biblical identity for who "the Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1 is to be.

I'm not trying to swomp you, or post long posts, because I don't think you even read them to start with and I could always break them into shorter posts, anyway, and I would rather be at the movies.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Oh, my bad, I see what you are saying is going on in your head, now.

You don't say too much, so it takes me a minute.

By adopting various impliable determinations in our heart and mind, there is a specific purpose that is able to be accomplished.

Not sure that God accepts that purpose, or that He wants to see it at the Judgment, though, so I have been at a loss as to why you wouldn't have just picked a system of theology the has its own verses to go with it, without the need for otherwise shaky and questionable (below) interpretations, being assumed to be immutable.

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

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

redemption?

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.

No one?

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.

"world?

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

"given"?

So if one really thinks Christ did not pay this for everyone, how is one to know one's self was not excluded?

By not really believing that.

Titus 1:2.
1 John 2:2.
1 John 5:9-13.

"excluded"

How can one, before believing in Christ as one's Savior, believe Christ paid for one's sins, if one thinks Christ had not paid for everyone's sin?

Romans 5:8, ". . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . ."

"everyone's"?

Versus
KJV,
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.

"denying"?

Jude 1:4 identifies "the Lord that bought them, . . ." in 2 Peter 2:1." There is no other Biblical identity for who "the Lord" in 2 Peter 2:1 is to be.

"bought"?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Oh, my bad, I see what you are saying is going on in your head, now.

You don't say too much, so it takes me a minute.

By adopting various impliable determinations in our heart and mind, there is a specific purpose that is able to be accomplished.

Not sure that God accepts that purpose, or that He wants to see it at the Judgment, though, so I have been at a loss as to why you wouldn't have just picked a system of theology the has its own verses to go with it, without the need for otherwise shaky and questionable (below) interpretations, being assumed to be immutable.



redemption?



No one?



"world?



"given"?



"excluded"



"everyone's"?



"denying"?



"bought"?
Multiple single word questions.

redemption?


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

2 Peter 2:1 ". . . the Lord . . . .
 

Alan Gross

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

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

Your purpose for this thread has failed miserably.

"The purpose of this thread, 2 Peter 2:1 demonstrates the general redemption was God's provision", has not shown to have been accomplished without adopting and injecting various impliable determinations along with the necessity for considerably shaky and questionable (below), i.e., misinterpretations, being assumed to be immutable.
...

redemption?

You quote 2 Peter 2:1 and advance the notion it contains an expression of "redemption", and then amplify it to be expressing "general redemption", however, your hypothesis doesn't include your definition of "redemption", or what you are crying out and insisting, with or without any linguistic integrity, the meaning "bought", is that you give it, that is essentially necessary it be accepted, without giving it further thoughts, whether that would be honest or not.

While on the other hand,
Oh, my bad, I see what you are saying is going on in your head, now.

You don't say too much, so it takes me a minute.

By adopting various impliable determinations in our heart and mind, there is a specific purpose that is able to be accomplished.

Not sure that God accepts that purpose, or that He wants to see it at the Judgment, though, so I have been at a loss as to why you wouldn't have just picked a system of theology the has its own verses to go with it, without the need for otherwise shaky and questionable (below) interpretations, being assumed to be immutable.

Multiple single word questions.

My copy of the post is showing me your quotes along with the one word questions. Can you see your quotes, I quoted?

All of those quotes of yours have to have various impliable determinations injected into them by the redefinition of words contextually, along with the necessity for considerably shaky and questionable (below), i.e., misinterpretations, being assumed to be immutable, before you can ring the bell toward 'proving' anything.

By placing many of the "four main parts of a web; the hub or centre of a web where the spider usually rests, the frame threads or borders of the web, the sticky spiral or insect catching area, and the anchor points like the guideline attaching the web to the substrate"*, all together in one place, I was hoping to see you reconstruct your interesting spider web.

I just gave you one single-word question per quote of yours, for you to see what you had to say for yourself, given the opportunity to shine by saying what you identify each of them to mean, where they all stick together and don't just come off as,
  • bogus.
  • deceitful.
  • dishonest.
  • distorted.
  • erroneous.
  • fake.
  • fanciful.
  • faulty.**
jive talking, into one entangled filament and gossamer labyrinth of a mesh.***

Welcome to thistledown.


*parts of a spider web - Google Search

** false meanings synonyms - Google Search

*** spider web synonym - Google Search
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
In Exodus 15:13, God redeemed the people of Israel, when He delivered them from the bondage of Egypt, when among other Blessings of His Providence, The Lord paid their purchase price by drowning the Egyptians in the Red Sea.

In paying that price at that time, The Lord also had freed their posterity, including these false prophets from living in that bondage, and they now enjoyed the privileged freedom, of being Jews in the Chosen Nation of Israel.

Then, here they are, lost rebels in words and deeds, opposing all of the things of God and His Goodness He had extended toward them, in having delivered and redeemed their ancestors from the bondage of Egypt, by which they were now the beneficiaries, and they were found guilty by God to be, "denying the Lord that bought them".

That is the Divine Interpretation given from the verse Peter was using.

The words, "denying", "the Lord", and "bought" mean exactly what they say, in exactly that way.
 
Last edited:
Top