"deny the Master who bought them."

[Rippon]

Any time it takes several paragraphs to try to explain one phrase, I know a person is trying to get the scriptures to say something that a plain reading would contradict. Therefore, I believe you are only trying to muddle the issue in order to keep from admitting one more error in Calvinism.

So you don't believe in expositional preaching. You don't believe in exegetical studies either. You are out on a broken limb Mr. Snow.

 

[Winman]

So you don't believe in expositional preaching. You don't believe in exegetical studies either. You are out on a broken limb Mr. Snow.

Baloney. I agree with Robert, whenever you see a person go to so much effort to explain away the easily understood meaning of a verse or passage, or in this case the words "bought" and "Lord" a red flag should immediately go up.

What I am amazed at is how intelligent people can be fooled by this wresting of scripture and not easily perceive that a person is forcing scripture to fit their presupposed doctrine.

I also see that James White has a great dislike for the King James Version. That doesn't surprise me one bit, many who teach false doctrine do.

 

[asterisktom]

Rippon,
I don't get it.

You said:



It's clear Christ bought them. How did He buy them? With His blood, correct? That is what it means to say "Christ bought them".

He atoned even for those who will reject Him.



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


Who is John talking about when he says "ours"?

Who is he talking about when he says "world"?

I'm not sure if this particular question has been answered or not, but I may as well add this: John here was speaking as a Jew to Jews. There was still a great antipathy on the part of many Jews - even many Messianic Jews - against the Gentiles' entering in on (what they felt was) their covenant with God.

That is why John reminds his readers that Christ is a propitiation not just for Jewish sins but for those of Gentiles as well.

 

[asterisktom]

Any time it takes several paragraphs to try to explain one phrase, I know a person is trying to get the scriptures to say something that a plain reading would contradict. Therefore, I believe you are only trying to muddle the issue in order to keep from admitting one more error in Calvinism.

Another mind-reader wannabe.

When you guys go into great detail for your pet doctrines it is considered in-depth studying. When we do it it is evasion.

 

[Rippon]

2nd Peter 2:1: Who is Denying Whom?

Here is the first verse under consideration, 2nd Peter 2:1:

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

This passage is often used as proof that the effects of Christ's atonement must be wider than to just the elect, since the false teachers here written of, had Christ die for them. Then attention is drawn to the different verbs often used for "ransom", "redeem" etc. But what is often overlooked is the noun in the verse: The one who is doing the rescuing. And the Old Testament reference is too often missed.

Let's take a closer look at this phrase:

"even denying the Master ("DESPOTEN") who bought ("AGWRASANTA") them..."

This verse is not even speaking of Jesus Christ, rather it refers to God the Father.
The whole passage is referring back to Deuteronomy 32:1- 6. I was going to type the whole passage, but since time is now short I will just let those who want to to look it up. You will see that there are similar themes. More on that in a minute. First we have Peter's word "DESPOTES", a word which, though it often means "Lord", it refers to the Father, and not the Son. "Kurios" is the Son's word for "Lord". Check these verses out:

"The only Lord (DESPOTEN) God and our Lord (KURION) JESUS CHRIST" ~
Jude 4, referring respectively to first and second persons of the Trinity. Also: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2nd Timothy 2:21, Rev. 6:10, etc.

DESPOTES refers more to Lord as Master, while KURIOS refers more to Lord as Prince in reference to His subjects.
This fits in well with Scriptural uses, such as Christ being Prince of Peace. At any rate, 2nd Peter is referring to the Father and not to the Son. Nor is it referring to Calvary at all. How do we know this? Like I said, it goes back to Deut. 32:1- 6, which refers to God's rescuing the Israelites from Egypt.

We know that these here in 2nd Peter could not be bought on the Cross by Christ, because all of those that Christ so bought will be rescued, not one will end up in the damnation that these teachers obviously fall into. See: John 10:29; Romans 8:29- 39; Eph. 1:11- 14.

Other signs that Peter was thinking of Deuteronomy 32 when writing 2nd Peter 2:1 are the similar words used. Compare the "spotted children" (TEKNA MWMETA) of Deut. 32:5 (LXX - Peter's version) with 2nd Peter 2:13 and 3:14. Just a little study of both passages, especially if you have access to the LXX, should convince any unbiased reader that this is the true cross-reference of 2nd Peter 2:1.

Why go through all this trouble for such a little verse?
It is just to show that this verse does not show that Christ died for some that He did not save. This is about those who were rescued from Egypt, a physical and not a spiritual one (though it was a gracious token and prophetic sign for true salvation). These false teachers, though rescued from by their Master, the Father, effectively denied Him, by teaching the other Israelites to follow after Gods "whom their father did not know".

Christ never died for such false teachers. Their very lives are proof of their never having been regenerated, nor called (in the Romans 8:30 sense), nor died for.

Christ only died for the "children whom God has given [Him]". For those, and only for those, He took on the "nature of flesh and blood" and rescued from the devil. See and study carefully Hebrews 2:10- 18. Christ comes to rescue the "Children". He assumes flesh and blood because the children are made of flesh and blood. He became like us so that we may become, within our creature limits, like Him! Everyone He bought He will keep. And, yes, we may flounder at times but that true faith implanted will show itself in a heavenward affinity and allegiance. Denial of the Lord (Kurios) who bought us - and teaching of heresies concerning Him - is just not possible.

Thanks Tom. Winman keeps needing to refresh his memory on this real meaning of this passage of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure if this particular question has been answered or not, but I may as well add this: John here was speaking as a Jew to Jews. There was still a great antipathy on the part of many Jews - even many Messianic Jews - against the Gentiles' entering in on (what they felt was) their covenant with God.

That is why John reminds his readers that Christ is a propitiation not just for Jewish sins but for those of Gentiles as well.

Your premise is false. If there was anyone that wrote to the "world", that is, both Jews and Gentiles, it was John. John in most of his letters wrote to the world at large. Look at the Gospels. Matthew was directed to a Jewish audience with Christ presented as the Messiah. Mark was directed to a Roman audience presenting Christ as a servant (thus no genealogy). Luke was directed to the Greeks presenting Christ as perfect man, and John wrote to the world at large presenting Christ as the Savior of the world, the Son of God. He has a world-wide audience in the book of Revelation, as well as in his first epistle of John.

When your premise is wrong, what follows is wrong.
Christ made a propitiation for the sins of the world, just as he wrote. No need to water down the Bible.

 

[Rippon]

Your premise is false. If there was anyone that wrote to the "world", that is, both Jews and Gentiles, it was John. John in most of his letters wrote to the world at large. Look at the Gospels. Matthew was directed to a Jewish audience with Christ presented as the Messiah. Mark was directed to a Roman audience presenting Christ as a servant (thus no genealogy). Luke was directed to the Greeks presenting Christ as perfect man, and John wrote to the world at large presenting Christ as the Savior of the world, the Son of God. He has a world-wide audience in the book of Revelation, as well as in his first epistle of John.

When your premise is wrong, what follows is wrong.
Christ made a propitiation for the sins of the world, just as he wrote. No need to water down the Bible.

Tom is right. You are wrong. Read my post number 48 in the 1 John 2:2 thread.

 

[Aaron]

Your premise is false. If there was anyone that wrote to the "world", that is, both Jews and Gentiles, it was John. John in most of his letters wrote to the world at large. Look at the Gospels. Matthew was directed to a Jewish audience with Christ presented as the Messiah. Mark was directed to a Roman audience presenting Christ as a servant (thus no genealogy). Luke was directed to the Greeks presenting Christ as perfect man, and John wrote to the world at large presenting Christ as the Savior of the world, the Son of God. He has a world-wide audience in the book of Revelation, as well as in his first epistle of John.

When your premise is wrong, what follows is wrong.
Christ made a propitiation for the sins of the world, just as he wrote. No need to water down the Bible.

John's ministry was primarily to Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

 

[Winman]

You are not correct Rippon.

1 Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

What is the meaning IN CONTEXT of "all men" here? It means 100% of mankind. It would be a very difficult argument indeed to say that all kings and politicians are the elect! But we see in vs. 6 that Jesus gave himself a ransom for ALL.

 

[12strings]

FROM WINMAN:

I also see that James White has a great dislike for the King James Version. That doesn't surprise me one bit, many who teach false doctrine do.

I genereally agree with your posts on this thread...but I don't think these 2 things (dislike for the KJV = Teaching false doctrine). At least they are not connected any more than dislike for any translation = a teacher of false doctrine.

I'll agree that it is not generally a good idea to disparage ANY reputable translation of scripture in a sermon.

We recently devoted a sunday night to honoring the KJV's 400 years, while saying that there are many other good translations, and that it, like any translation, has its weaknesses.

 

[12strings]

You are not correct Rippon.

1 Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

What is the meaning IN CONTEXT of "all men" here? It means 100% of mankind. It would be a very difficult argument indeed to say that all kings and politicians are the elect! But we see in vs. 6 that Jesus gave himself a ransom for ALL.

I think the more difficult question is what does "for" mean in v. 6? Because, as we have all said before, it does NOT mean that his death saves them all.

However, Verses like this one in 1 timothy, and 2 Pet. 2:1 are what have lead me to consider myself a 4-pointer, or at least something in between. I still think most of this arguement is semantics.

 

[Winman]

I think the more difficult question is what does "for" mean in v. 6? Because, as we have all said before, it does NOT mean that his death saves them all.

However, Verses like this one in 1 timothy, and 2 Pet. 2:1 are what have lead me to consider myself a 4-pointer, or at least something in between. I still think most of this arguement is semantics.

Well, I would say a 4 pointer is not a Calvinist at all, but folks can call themselves whatever they like. Calvinism is a house of cards, pull one card out and it all crashes down.

Jesus gave himself a ransom for ALL. In the context shown, this verse could only be speaking of 100% of men.

 

[HankD]

We are all the property of God.​

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

HankD​

 

[Amy.G]

That is why John reminds his readers that Christ is a propitiation not just for Jewish sins but for those of Gentiles as well.

YES! And the OT atonement was made for EVERY JEW, just as Christ's atonement was made for EVERY MAN. Christ's atonement doesn't exclude anybody!

 

[DHK]

John's ministry was primarily to Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

Your reasoning is like the despicable and illogical reasoning I find on the board by the Calvinists. "If you are not a Calvinist, then you must be an Arminian." I have never heard such an inane statement in my life, but it is stated over and over again here, as if there are no other options.

But your logic is the same. Because Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, John was not allowed to address the Gentiles, or all other books were addressed to the Jews. That's foolishness and just as illogical.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Citations From 2011 NIV

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge then,first of all,that petitions,prayers,intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people --for kings and all those in authority,that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good,and pleases God our Savior,who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

What is the meaning IN CONTEXT of "all men" here? It means 100% of mankind.

Wrong again. It means all kinds of people,ordinary folks with no power and influence as well as rulers.In other words,all sorts of folks.

In Titus 2:11 it speaks of salvation being brought to all people. But the context clues one in --older women,young men,slaves and in 3:1 rulers and authorities. In short--all types of folks.

It would be a very difficult argument indeed to say that all kings and politicians are the elect!

Yes,it would indeed. Who is saying such nonsense?

But we see in vs. 6 that Jesus gave himself a ransom for ALL.

And by the context --which determines meaning --all kinds of people -- not each and every person head-for-head without exception.

 

[HankD]

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge then,first of all,that petitions,prayers,intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people --for kings and all those in authority,that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good,and pleases God our Savior,who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Wrong again. It means all kinds of people,ordinary folks with no power and influence as well as rulers.In other words,all sorts of folks.

In Titus 2:11 it speaks of salvation being brought to all people. But the context clues one in --older women,young men,slaves and in 3:1 rulers and authorities. In short--all types of folks.

Yes,it would indeed. Who is saying such nonsense?

And by the context --which determines meaning --all kinds of people -- not each and every person head-for-head without exception.

NKJV Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

HankD​

 

[Jerome]

All? Did someone say all?

From Rippon's thread 2011 NIV Is Praised — Some Lutherans like the 2011 NIV and so should you!

The WELS Lutherans especially liked this new NIV2011 reading:

Romans 3:23-24 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

[Winman]

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge then,first of all,that petitions,prayers,intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people --for kings and all those in authority,that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good,and pleases God our Savior,who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Wrong again. It means all kinds of people,ordinary folks with no power and influence as well as rulers.In other words,all sorts of folks.

In Titus 2:11 it speaks of salvation being brought to all people. But the context clues one in --older women,young men,slaves and in 3:1 rulers and authorities. In short--all types of folks.

Yes,it would indeed. Who is saying such nonsense?

And by the context --which determines meaning --all kinds of people -- not each and every person head-for-head without exception.

Pure baloney. Calvinism constantly tells us what God MEANT to say. In Calvinism, God is not smart enough to properly express himself and needs Reformed "scholars" to clarify what he really meant to say. God says "all men", Calvinists say God really meant to say "only the elect". Or, in this passage where it is clear Paul is speaking of all mankind, Calvinists say God really meant to say "all kinds of men". Laughable.

Sure is great you Calvinists have come along and helped God, as in your view God is not smart enough to say "only the elect" or "all kinds of men".

[snipped - inflammatory] I would not have been fooled by these false arguments when I was six years old!

 

[Rippon]

NKJV Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.
​

Are you under the impression that I object to Acts 17:30? If so,you are completely mistaken.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The world = Jews and Gentiles alike. That is,the children of God scattered throughout the earth.