Does regeneration precede faith?

[DHK]

This passage is not the death nail to limited atonement. The following is from a commentary article on this verse titled "2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption" by Simon Escobedo III. If interested, the whole article can be found here http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html

"To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.

It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. It has also been demonstrated that the term “bought” (agorazo) in the New Testament is most frequently used in non-redemptive contexts. When used redemptively there are specific pointers that are conspicuously absent in 2 Peter 2:1 (such as the purchase price, believers as the lone object, or the presence of other mediatorial or redemptive features). Since this is so, it of necessity eliminates the assumed non-Reformed interpretation, at the very least, as the only viable interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1

In Conclusion

We are left then with two possible understandings to the text:

1. The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate.

2. The term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance. "

I looked a little at your link. The first thing I noticed was this:
He stated his Calvinistic presuppositions. Then based on those presuppositions declared that the rendering sometimes given to the verse (such as I gave it) must be absolutely wrong. On that basis (a false premise), he sets out to prove the verse's interpretation must fit his own paradigm.
Don't you see some inconsistencies there?

Consider the verse:
2Pe 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.

and in the Greek:
2 Peter 2:1 εγενοντο δε και ψευδοπροφηται εν τω λαω ως και εν υμιν εσονται ψευδοδιδασκαλοι οιτινες παρεισαξουσιν αιρεσεις απωλειας και τον αγορασαντα αυτους δεσποτην αρνουμενοι επαγοντες εαυτοις ταχινην απωλειαν

Concerning the word, "Lord" or "δεσποτης."
The word occurs 10 times in the NT.
5 times it is translated as "Lord," 4 times as "master," and once as "master" (Lord)
In the last case, 2:21:
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
--It, of course, refers to Christ.

Simeon's prayer:
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Jud 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.

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

As you can see 6 out of the 10 times it is used the word despotes refers to Jesus Christ our Lord.
It definitely is used in the sense of our sovereign Lord in Acts 4:24, Jude 1:4 and Rev.6:10. In these cases one must recognize Him as such in order to be saved.

Concerning the word "bought"
Strong's says:

αγοραζω agorazo ag-or-ad'-zo
from 58; properly, to go to market, i.e. (by implication) to purchase; specially, to redeem:—buy, redeem.

Note: Especially to redeem; to buy to redeem. That is the meaning of the word.

Remember Hosea. The Lord sent him back to the market place, to the slave market to buy back, to purchase his wife, to redeem her and bring her back again.
That is a picture of redemption.

The purchase price has been paid. It has been paid for all mankind. If it is refused there is nothing that can be done about it. That price must be gladly accepted and received as payment paid. Jesus paid it all. He paid it with his blood. The justice of God was satisfied. The slave must take that gift and receive it and then be thankful to the one who provided it--the great Judge himself.

These false teachers denied that Christ paid for their salvation, that he was the purchase price. They refused this doctrine that Jesus paid for their sins.
Not only did they refuse the doctrine, they denied the Lord himself.

Obviously these false teachers can't lose the salvation they never had.
But they can denounce a true doctrine as John 3:16 and in doing so unwittingly denounce Calvin's false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Concerning the word "bought"
Strong's says:

Note: Especially to redeem; to buy to redeem. That is the meaning of the word.

Remember Hosea. The Lord sent him back to the market place, to the slave market to buy back, to purchase his wife, to redeem her and bring her back again.
That is a picture of redemption. .

We both agree on the Greek word that was used, but you ignore what the article states in regard to the usage of this Greek word as found in the New Testament, ""To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used (this is the greek word for the word "bought" in the verse), only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) [B]in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.[/B]"

For verses with this Greek word are used in a redemptive sense are plainly laid out by the author and and apply only to believers (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4).

The purchase price has been paid. It has been paid for all mankind. If it is refused there is nothing that can be done about it. That price must be gladly accepted and received as payment paid. Jesus paid it all. He paid it with his blood. The justice of God was satisfied. The slave must take that gift and receive it and then be thankful to the one who provided it--the great Judge himself. .

If a ransom was paid (which I think we both agree it was, we just differ on the "for whom" question), then the criminal is free! If Christ paid the ransom for all mankind, then nobody would go to Hell!

Also, if you believe that Greek for "bought" is used in a redemptive manner ( I contend it is not) for that verse in Peter, you have the problem of people who are redeemed going to Hell!

These false teachers denied that Christ paid for their salvation, that he was the purchase price. They refused this doctrine that Jesus paid for their sins.
Not only did they refuse the doctrine, they denied the Lord himself.

Obviously these false teachers can't lose the salvation they never had.
But they can denounce a true doctrine as John 3:16 and in doing so unwittingly denounce Calvin's false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I call you "brother" and truly believe you are! However, you are implying that the false teachers in that verse in Peter are specifically those that hold to the doctrine of the limited atonement and thus if they continue to hold and teach that they are on their way to hell! Is this what you believe? If it is, what scripture do you hold to that contends that those trusting solely in the redeemed work of Christ on Calvary can go to Hell? This is what you would be saying if you believe all the teachers of a limited atonement are spoken of in this Peter verse.

 

[steaver]

Some verses to chew on...


Dan. 6:1-3

--It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

Greetings Willis! Glad you decided to talk to me again. :thumbs:

This passage is not a good pick for your position. The "spirit" referred to here is his own, not the Holy Spirit.

By your post here, you are saying they OT saints were saved w/o the regenerating power of the Spirit

All are saved by faith. God actually indwelling a believer is the New Covenant. It's remarkable that believers do not understand the difference between the OT covenant and the NT covenant. Both are by faith, the NEW covenant is God In You!!!!!!!!! Born-again!!!!

 

[DHK]

For verses with this Greek word are used in a redemptive sense are plainly laid out by the author and and apply only to believers (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4).

I will wait to discuss that particular word.

If a ransom was paid (which I think we both agree it was, we just differ on the "for whom" question), then the criminal is free! If Christ paid the ransom for all mankind, then nobody would go to Hell!

That is not true. A governor can give a pardon but a man in jail doesn't have to receive it. There have been times in history where prisoners have refused to be pardoned.
And the same is true in redemption.
I believe that one cam make a case for the redemption of both Ruth and Orpah. If Orpah had made the same confession that Ruth had made and not gone back to her idolatrous ways, would she not also be redeemed. But she made the choice. No one compelled her. There is free will at work. What made Ruth freely choose to follow and Orpah freely choose to reject? Did God love the one and hate the other? Not at all! That is a ludicrous conclusion and does injustice to the passage in Romans 9.

Also, if you believe that Greek for "bought" is used in a redemptive manner ( I contend it is not) for that verse in Peter, you have the problem of people who are redeemed going to Hell!

No redeemed person is going to hell. You are defining "redeemed" within the confines and strictures put in place by Calvin and can't think outside of that box.
Redemption was provided for Naomi and Ruth. But they could have rejected it. They could have run back to Moab if they so desired. It was a gift that they had to receive.
Rahab had to receive the salvation offered by Joshua and the Israelites.
The wife of Hosea could have run away from Hosea, but she willingly went back with Hosea. The purchase price was paid. But she still had to make the choice to go back with him.

I call you "brother" and truly believe you are! However, you are implying that the false teachers in that verse in Peter are specifically those that hold to the doctrine of the limited atonement and thus if they continue to hold and teach that they are on their way to hell! Is this what you believe? If it is, what scripture do you hold to that contends that those trusting solely in the redeemed work of Christ on Calvary can go to Hell? This is what you would be saying if you believe all the teachers of a limited atonement are spoken of in this Peter verse.

I believe firmly that Christ died for the sins of the world, all the world.
To deny that truth, so firmly taught scripture after after scripture, is erroneous. Peter named it as a false doctrine "limited atonement."
That doe not mean that all who believe in limited atonement have lost their salvation or are on their way to hell. No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that Peter points out how serious a denial of the doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the world, is.

 

[steaver]

This is what happens when someone fails to have a cogent and cohesive whole-Bible theology. If you look at the entire story-line of Scripture, you'll see that Steaver does not have a leg to stand on...

How can it be said that "the Holy Ghost was not yet given" when we clearly read the following throughout the text of Scripture:

The Archangel

Apostle John......"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

Clearly David had the Holy Spirit. If he didn't how could it be taken from him?

Of course, Peter says that David had the Holy Spirit:

[16] “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. (Acts 1:16 ESV)
​

Of course, the Holy Spirit is the "Author" of Scripture. So, He was present in many more people than David. Peter, again, writes:

[10] Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, [11] inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. [12] It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Peter 1:10-12 ESV)
​

The Spirit predicted the sufferings of Christ (and the glories). The sufferings and glories of Christ were revealed to the prophets by the Spirit as a service to all of us. Again, though, we have the Holy Spirit being present in the Prophets as Peter further explains:

[21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21 ESV)
​

If the Holy Spirit was NOT present in the writers of the Old Testament (and the New, but that's not in view here), then we have NO doctrine of inspiration.

In fact, if you argue--as you are doing--that the Holy Spirit was not given until after the glorification of Christ, then you MUST throw out the entire Old Testament.

I certainly hope you understand the many workings of the Holy Spirit. Being able to speak on behalf of God does not equate to the NT rebirth. Certainly Balaam's dumb ass wasn't regenerated.

Of course, the error you are committing is what happens when one verse is cited without the larger biblical context. Surely John 7:39 says "for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." But it, of course, it does not mean what you think it means.

Since D. A. Carson says it so well, I'll cite him here:

Up to this point in Jesus’ ministry, the Spirit had not yet been given. This paraphrase has the meaning right, though the reading most likely original is, literally, ‘for the Spirit was not yet’. Of course John cannot possibly mean the Spirit was not yet in existence, or operative in the prophets. John himself has already spoken of the Spirit’s operation upon and in Jesus himself (1:32; 3:34). What the Evangelist means is that the Spirit of the dawning kingdom comes as the result—indeed, the entailment—of the Son’s completed work, and up to that point the Holy Spirit was not given in the full, Christian sense of the term (cf. also the notes on 3:1–15).

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 329. (Emphasis mine)
​

Really? This suffices for an explanation for you? Why don't we just let the Evangelist John's explanation stand, after all, it is crystal clear.....

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". "But this he spake he of the Spirit!!!!!!!!! And this work of the Spirit was not yet given!!!!!! The Comforter!!!!

"Living Water" is the Holy Spirit IN YOU, regeneration, new creation. John says THIS miracle was NOT YET GIVEN.

Jesus said, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." He always dwelled WITH people, after Jesus' glorification, He shall be IN YOU!

How can anyone possibly miss this???

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
​

Again, how can Christians miss this point???

 

[Rippon]

Peter calls the belief in Limited Atonement
1. A belief of false teachers and false prophets.
2. A damnable heresy.
3. a heresy that brings upon those that teach it swift destruction.

At least that is what this verse teaches as far as I understand it.

Now that is certainly a first. There is no such interpretation from any Bible commentator of any stripe that would assert that foolish contention of DHK.

Did you bother to read verses that follow which describe these false teachers?

They have "shameful ways"

They have "greed" even "experts" in it

They "heap abuse on celestial beings"

They are like "unreasoning animals"

They "carouse in broad daylight"

And many more citations can be added from the rest of chapter 2.

Do you honestly think that those who believe in particular redemption can be characterized by those qualities listed in the bulk of 2 Peter 2? Really? Think more carefully.

 

[Rippon]

I believe firmly that Christ died for the sins of the world, all the world.
To deny that truth, so firmly taught scripture after after scripture, is erroneous. Peter named it as a false doctrine "limited atonement."
That doe [sc]not mean that all who believe in limited atonement have lost their salvation or are on their way to hell. No, I am not saying that.
I am saying that Peter points out how serious a denial of the doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the world, is.

"No, I am not saying that."

Ha, you are indeed. You contradict yourself so often. Back in your post #95 you said that the doctrine of limited atonement is "damnable heresy." Can't you even remember what you have posted? Do you even understand what damnable heresy means?

Now you are trying to extricate yourself --and it is laughable to watch.

 

[Rippon]

It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (despotes) refers to an owner in a master- slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. It has also been demonstrated that the term “bought” (agorazo) in the New Testament is most frequently used in non-redemptive contexts. When used redemptively there are specific pointers that are conspicuously absent in 2 Peter 2:1 (such as the purchase price, believers as the lone object, or the presence of other mediatorial or redemptive features). Since this is so, it of necessity eliminates the assumed non-Reformed interpretation, at the very least, as the only viable interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1

The term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance. "

Exactly. This is Deuteronomy 32:6:

Is this the way you repay the Lord,
you foolish and unwise people?
Is he not your Father, your Creator,
who made you and formed you? (NIV)

The ones described in Deut. 32:6 and 2 Peter 2:1 fall under the same category. God the Father has ownership of them by His authority and power. But nothing salvific is intended.

 

[The Archangel]

Apostle John......"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"


I certainly hope you understand the many workings of the Holy Spirit. Being able to speak on behalf of God does not equate to the NT rebirth. Certainly Balaam's dumb ass wasn't regenerated.

Really? This suffices for an explanation for you? Why don't we just let the Evangelist John's explanation stand, after all, it is crystal clear.....

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". "But this he spake he of the Spirit!!!!!!!!! And this work of the Spirit was not yet given!!!!!! The Comforter!!!!

"Living Water" is the Holy Spirit IN YOU, regeneration, new creation. John says THIS miracle was NOT YET GIVEN.

Jesus said, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." He always dwelled WITH people, after Jesus' glorification, He shall be IN YOU!

How can anyone possibly miss this???

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
​

Again, how can Christians miss this point???

See... The problem is--actually, your problem is--that you've decided on the statement of one verse, not the biblical story in its entirety, what you think is going on. In fact, the entirety of scripture stands against your errant presupposition which is born of a very myopic, self-serving exercise in proof-texting.

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

Now that is certainly a first. There is no such interpretation from any Bible commentator of any stripe that would assert that foolish contention of DHK.

Did you bother to read verses that follow which describe these false teachers?

They have "shameful ways"

They have "greed" even "experts" in it

They "heap abuse on celestial beings"

They are like "unreasoning animals"

They "carouse in broad daylight"

And many more citations can be added from the rest of chapter 2.

Do you honestly think that those who believe in particular redemption can be characterized by those qualities listed in the bulk of 2 Peter 2? Really? Think more carefully.

No. They were false teachers who taught damnable heresies and their lifestyles also characterized their unregenerate state.
Secondly, "Limited Atonement" is only one of many "damnable heresies."

If we go to 1Tim.4:1-5, we find that there are two specific doctrines (among many) that are mentioned as "doctrines of demons."
Believing in either celibacy or a special kind of diet won't send you to hell.
Both "fads" have been practiced by various sects of Christianity down throughout the centuries.

 

[Rippon]

"Limited Atonement" is only one of many "damnable heresies."

You say it such a nonchalant manner. Please define "damnable heresies." I doubt you even know what you are talking about.

 

[steaver]

See... The problem is--actually, your problem is--that you've decided on the statement of one verse, not the biblical story in its entirety, what you think is going on. In fact, the entirety of scripture stands against your errant presupposition which is born of a very myopic, self-serving exercise in proof-texting.

The Archangel

One verse? Did you read my post? Not only did I give several examples, I gave crystal clear examples. You seem to believe that the Holy Spirit has only one work - regeneration. The WHOLE of scripture gives multiple works of the Holy Spirit - Creation, Inspiration, conviction, Teacher, Living Water, Comforter, those just off of the top of my head without doing a complete exposition.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand what Living water is? Gotta get to bed, I'll let you study that one before answering.....

 

[The Archangel]

No. They were false teachers who taught damnable heresies and their lifestyles also characterized their unregenerate state.
Secondly, "Limited Atonement" is only one of many "damnable heresies."

If we go to 1Tim.4:1-5, we find that there are two specific doctrines (among many) that are mentioned as "doctrines of demons."
Believing in either celibacy or a special kind of diet won't send you to hell.
Both "fads" have been practiced by various sects of Christianity down throughout the centuries.

You say it such a nonchalant manner. Please define "damnable heresies." I doubt you even know what you are talking about.

Considering that a heresy is--historically--something that disqualifies the one believing in said heresy from being a true believer, it's clear that DHK has again questioned the salvation of every Calvinist who holds to limited atonement.

But, as we all know, the rules don't apply to him and he gets a free pass from everyone, especially the good Squire, but I digress.......

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

Considering that a heresy is--historically--something that disqualifies the one believing in said heresy from being a true believer, it's clear that DHK has again questioned the salvation of every Calvinist who holds to limited atonement.

But, as we all know, the rules don't apply to him and he gets a free pass from everyone, especially the good Squire, but I digress.......

The Archangel

DHK, is a hypocrite --plain & simple.

 

[Rippon]

But, as we all know, the rules don't apply to him and he gets a free pass from everyone, especially the good Squire, but I digress.......

Ain't that the truth.

 

[The Archangel]

One verse?

Yes... One verse.

Did you read my post?

Of course.

Not only did I give several examples, I gave crystal clear examples.

You gave several examples, but your over-riding hermeneutic comes from the text "the spirit had not yet been given" which cannot mean what you take it to mean.

You seem to believe that the Holy Spirit has only one work - regeneration.

Not in the least.

The WHOLE of scripture gives multiple works of the Holy Spirit - Creation, Inspiration, conviction, Teacher, Living Water, Comforter, those just off of the top of my head without doing a complete exposition.

First, the Holy Spirit is not "Living Water." The phrase "Living Water" is a metaphor. It refers to and relates to the Spirit, but the Spirit is not liquid.

Second, you seem to think no one in the Old Testament had the Spirit in a regenerative way, which is absurd in the scope of a whole-Bible theology, which you are lacking.

Third, the giving of the Holy Spirit to individuals in the Old Testament was not only for their inspired writings. Of course, David prays in Psalm 51 "do not take your spirit from me." This is not simply a plea for him to keep his ability to write inspired Psalms.

Fourth, just because the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not well developed in the Old Testament, does not mean the Holy Spirit was not active in the Old Testament in the way He is in the New Testament. Now, of course, there are differences in His activity. In the Old Testament, He regenerates and indwells "believers" on a case-by-case basis. In the New Testament, He indwells all believers. But to say His operation if fundamentally different between the testaments is just wrong.

The Old Testament does not have a well-developed understanding of the state after death. The New Testament greatly informs our understanding of these things. But, we are not to assume that there was no such thing as an afterlife in the Old Testament simply because it isn't well developed until the New. That would be absurd. But, it's just as absurd to suggest that the Spirit's work is fundamentally different in the New Testament just because His work isn't fully described in the Old.

This is what we call "Progressive Revelation." The story line of redemption, etc. are unfolded progressively in the text of Scripture. So, David, for instance, knew more about God's plan of redemption (for example) than Abraham or Moses did.

The error you're making--and many Dispys make this grave error--is that you do not see the Bible as a unified, progressive revelation.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand what Living water is? Gotta get to bed, I'll let you study that one before answering.....

Absolutely I understand what living water is. Do you? It appears that you don't because you take the metaphor too far. Are we really to believe that the Holy Spirit will flow out of us when Christ says He (the Spirit) flows from Him (Christ) and the Father?

That's what happens when you don't understand the background to Jesus' words in John 7--The Feast of Booths....

Perhaps you should return to the study desk.....

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

You say it such a nonchalant manner. Please define "damnable heresies." I doubt you even know what you are talking about.

Let's look at what some others say:
First, A.T. Robertson:

Destructive heresies (haireseis apôleias). Descriptive genitive, "heresies of destruction" (marked by destruction) as in Lu 16:8. Hairesis (from haireô) is simply a choosing, a school, a sect like that of the Sadducees (Ac 5:17), of the Pharisees (Ac 15:5), and of Christians as Paul admitted (Ac 24:5). These "tenets" (Ga 5:20) led to destruction.

Even the Master (kai ton despotên). Old word for absolute master, here of Christ as in Jude 1:4, and also of God (Ac 4:24). Without the evil sense in our "despot."
That bought them (ton agorasanta autous). First aorist active articular participle of agorazô, same idea with lutroô in 1Pe 1:18. These were professing Christians, at any rate, these heretics.

The word is more accurately translated "destructive," and heresies is a word that is related to "making a choice." People choose to believe in the destructive beliefs that they do.

What Wesley holds to is quite interesting:

Destructive heresies - They first, by denying the Lord, introduced destructive heresies, that is, divisions; or they occasioned first these divisions, and then were given up to a reprobate mind, even to deny the Lord that bought them. Either the heresies are the effect of denying the Lord, or the denying the Lord was the consequence of the heresies. Even denying - Both by their doctrine and their works. The Lord that bought them - With his own blood. Yet these very men perish everlastingly. Therefore Christ bought even them that perish. John Wesley's Notes on the Bible

--This is what I have said all along--Christ bought even them that perish.

This is what Adam Clarke states:

Damnable heresies - Αιρεσεις απωλειας Heresies of destruction; such as, if followed, would lead a man to perdition. And these παρεισαξουσιν , they will bring in privately - cunningly, without making much noise, and as covertly as possible. It would be better to translate destructive heresies than damnable.
Denying the Lord that bought them - It is not certain whether God the Father be intended here, or our Lord Jesus Christ; for God is said to have purchased the Israelites, Ex 15:16, and to be the Father that had bought them, De 32:6, and the words may refer to these or such like passages; or they may point out Jesus Christ, who had bought them with his blood; and the heresies, or dangerous opinions, may mean such as opposed the Divinity of our Lord, or his meritorious and sacrificial death, or such opinions as bring upon those who hold them swift destruction. It seems, however, more natural to understand the Lord that bought them as applying to Christ, than otherwise; and if so, this is another proof, among many,
1. That none can be saved but by Jesus Christ.
2. That through their own wickedness some may perish for whom Christ died. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown says this:

damnable — literally, “of destruction”; entailing destruction (Phi_3:19) on all who follow them.

heresies — self-chosen doctrines, not emanating from God (compare “will-worship,” Col_2:23).

Lord — “Master and Owner” (Greek), compare Jud_1:4, Greek. Whom the true doctrine teaches to be their OWNER by right of purchase. Literally, “denying Him who bought them (that He should be thereby), their Master.”

bought them — Even the ungodly were bought by His “precious blood.” It shall be their bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ’s redemption was concerned, they might have been saved. The denial of His propitiatory sacrifice is included in the meaning (compare 1Jo_4:3). Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary

The KJV uses "damnable" but destructive is a better translation.
It is heretical in that it is divisive, a choice to err from the truth.

In that respect I have personally seen what Calvinism has done in many churches. Brought in by a few it has divided the leadership, split the church, caused divisions by its controversial doctrines leaving nothing but heart-ache in its wake.

 

[steaver]

You gave several examples, but your over-riding hermeneutic comes from the text "the spirit had not yet been given" which cannot mean what you take it to mean.

The Archangel

You mean and cannot mean what John says it means. John (via the Holy Spirit inspiration) makes it crystal clear what it means - Living Water.

First, the Holy Spirit is not "Living Water." The phrase "Living Water" is a metaphor. It refers to and relates to the Spirit, but the Spirit is not liquid.

You seriously think John meant the Holy Spirit was a liquid? That is ridiculous. Let's see what John said the Holy Spirit is called in this indwelling work...."He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

Did Jesus call the Holy Spirit living water? "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

I will ask you again, what is this "living water" Jesus declared He would give? (And it is not a liquid, you can rule that one out)

Second, you seem to think no one in the Old Testament had the Spirit in a regenerative way, which is absurd in the scope of a whole-Bible theology, which you are lacking.

You believe John didn't call the Holy Spirit living water and you declare I am lacking theology? Really?

Third, the giving of the Holy Spirit to individuals in the Old Testament was not only for their inspired writings. Of course, David prays in Psalm 51 "do not take your spirit from me." This is not simply a plea for him to keep his ability to write inspired Psalms.

David also prays for God to "create a clean heart" within him. Which if you understood regeneration, you would understand David was being prophetic.

Fourth, just because the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not well developed in the Old Testament, does not mean the Holy Spirit was not active in the Old Testament in the way He is in the New Testament. Now, of course, there are differences in His activity. In the Old Testament, He regenerates and indwells "believers" on a case-by-case basis. In the New Testament, He indwells all believers. But to say His operation if fundamentally different between the testaments is just wrong.

This whole statement is just wrong, and has no biblical foundation. It's derived from Calvinism's flawed understanding of how the New Covenant works.

The Old Testament does not have a well-developed understanding of the state after death. The New Testament greatly informs our understanding of these things. But, we are not to assume that there was no such thing as an afterlife in the Old Testament simply because it isn't well developed until the New. That would be absurd. But, it's just as absurd to suggest that the Spirit's work is fundamentally different in the New Testament just because His work isn't fully described in the Old.

This is what we call "Progressive Revelation." The story line of redemption, etc. are unfolded progressively in the text of Scripture. So, David, for instance, knew more about God's plan of redemption (for example) than Abraham or Moses did

So when God says He will do a "New thing" and He will change the heart, you say "No God, you have been doing this since Adam, you really mean you will just tell us later".

Absolutely I understand what living water is. Do you? It appears that you don't because you take the metaphor too far. Are we really to believe that the Holy Spirit will flow out of us when Christ says He (the Spirit) flows from Him (Christ) and the Father?

You have demonstrated you have no idea what this living water is Jesus and John spoke of. You have yet to give an answer. We are all still waiting........

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver;

You have demonstrated you have no idea what this living water is Jesus and John spoke of. You have yet to give an answer. We are all still waiting......

We are not all still waiting Steaver...we all read the answer and see what you do not:laugh: You just were answered and evidently did not understand the answer:wavey:

Your agenda fails because you are not rooted in scriptural based and accurate understanding:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

steaver;


We are not all still waiting Steaver...we all read the answer and see what you do not:laugh: You just were answered and evidently did not understand the answer:wavey:

Your agenda fails because you are not rooted in scriptural based and accurate understanding:thumbs:

Do you have anything substantive to offer to the debate? Do you know what the living water is John and Jesus spoke of? Please share...