The Limited Atonement

[Particular]

Your post assigns to the blood to what it is not assigned by the Scriptures.

You quoted Isaiah, but the opening of Isaiah was to a different audience. An audience that had to perform for salvation, that had to have demonstrated reform for salvation.

Isaiah 1:

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem​

The appeal was made specifically to Judah and Jerusalem. Here is what God required:

6Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.

18“Come now, let us reasonc together, says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”​

Do not grab a verse and expect to smear its use in other areas. It may sound good but is not good and inappropriate.

Believers enjoy these verses, but with the understanding as a believer, not as a heathen attempting to work some magical solution. For example:

When David (a believer) was confronted by Nathan, he spoke in these terms: (Psalms 51)

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin! ...
...
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.​

This is also reflected in John's first letter to believers:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

What you did was apply what is to believers (or in case of Isaiah the appeal to believe) and make it as if it applied to the whole humanity. It does not.

There is no "whiter than snow" verse attached to the whole of humanity nor to the blood, or such would lead believers to a sinless perfection in which the old holiness methodist taught and is still taught in schools such. as Asbury University.

I do not expect you to accept my view, however, do not discard it by appropriating Scriptures that do not rightly apply.

Here is a truth that is cannot be misappropriated, yet some actually fail in the understanding.

The first letter of John states:

He is the propitiation (blood sprinkled) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
​

Why do some go to great exercising to make the word "world" as a subset of the whole?

It just is not consistent with John's careful selection of words.

John is so very consistent and precise to use the same words with the same meanings throughout his writing and in that context "world" never refers to a subset of the whole.

Therefore, the bloodshed by the Christ was for ALL sin, from the beginning until the end. When men stand before God, they are not judged upon the quality nor quantity of their sin. Those who do not believe are already condemned. Why would God even make sin an issue? Condemnation is already the condition of that person.

That is also consistent with the OT presentation of the blood sacrifices. The sacrifice was for all in the land, not just a subset of believing Jews among all that are Jews. So it is with the blood of Christ, was for all the land, all part of creation, and not a subset of the whole as some would desire.

HOWEVER, that does in no manner even suggests, as some would desire to express, that some universal salvation is implied, or even offered. Such thinking is excusing sloppy study and just foolishness.

With all due respect, you are arguing against yourself. I quoted Hebrews 9 and stated what it states about the blood of Christ.
You created an entire argument for me and then claimed this is what I believed. At this point you are arguing with yourself, having picked the verses that you ascribe to me.
My point is simply that God chooses who is atoned by the sacrifice of Christ and who is not atoned by the sacrifice of Christ. If you intend to read more into it then at least ascribe the deeper reading to yourself as you argue with yourself over the various views you have created in your mind.

 

[Particular]

Okay, but how? I believe everything Peter wrote, including when he said that false prophets were purchased by our Lord. They are doomed to destruction yet purchased. That's what the text says. I believe all of it. Do you?

Where does it say "our Lord." Is that your translation? He says "their master." Is your Lord and their master the same person? They are, after all, false prophets.

 

[Scott Downey]

A commentary from the Reformation Study Bible

2:1 heresies. The Greek term at one time referred to groups or sects in a neutral sense (cf. “sect,” Acts 24:5). It was used by Paul of divisive groups (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20), and it came to denote the specific teachings of such groups. Here, teachings regarding Christian conduct are probably in view—conduct that placed the teachers under judgment (v. 3; 3:7).

denying the Master who bought them. Peter is not saying Christians can lose their salvation (John 10:28, 29; Rom. 8:28–30), but is describing the false teachers in terms of their own profession of faith (vv. 20, 21). By teaching and practicing immorality they despise the lordship of Christ and prove their profession to be false (1 John 2:3, 4, 19).

Though the phrase “the Master who bought them” is taken by some to mean that Christ’s substitutionary death applies to all rather than to the elect only (see “Definite Redemption” at John 10:15), Peter’s concern here is to highlight the responsibility of the false teachers rather than to advance a theory of the Atonement. With their claim to be redeemed by Christ, their “sensuality” (v. 2) brings particular dishonor on Christ and His sacrifice for sin.

 

[InTheLight]

Where does it say "our Lord." Is that your translation? He says "their master." Is your Lord and their master the same person? They are, after all, false prophets.

2 Peter 2:1

KJV: "the Lord"
NKJV: the Lord"
NIV: "the sovereign Lord"

ESV: "the Master"

So I guess another reason why Calvinists like the ESV.

 

[agedman]

Since you have shown your opinion here, and to better understand the points your arguing in favor of, your views, what is your opinion on the atonement, is it universal atonement, or limited atonement?

It is indeed both.

The NT:

The blood was splattered indiscriminately and in terms of John the "propitiation" for the whole world.

However, the death and resurrection are specific for the believers and are specific in the benefit for believers.

John 3 presents "God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world, through Him might be saved." That is the all-inclusive position of the presentation of Christ.

However, John 3 doesn't stop at that point, but continues, "those that believe are not condemned, those that believe not are already condemned". This is then the limitation.

What then brings belief?

The Scriptures present that, through the delivery of the Scriptures and work of the Holy Spirit, faith comes (it is not innate in all humankind but is delivered by God to specific folks).

Ephesians, "not of works" but it is that unmerited "gift of God."

Such a gift is for a specific purpose according to His good pleasure and glory.

The OT:
In my opinion, this is the representation of the pictures from the day of atonement in the OT. Often one may focus on a single picture, and become so engrossed in that single presentation, the rest of the portraits in the gallery are ignored or considered of lesser importance.

The sprinkling of the blood was for all in the land whether they were believers or not.

However, not all were redeemed (as evident in their character and conduct and statements of condemnation by prophets) and therefore the day of atonement was both for all, and yet specific for the benefit of those who believed.


The late TCassidy would put this thinking of (specifically the blood) in terms of sufficient and efficient. Sufficient for all but efficient for only the believers.

He was from the school of recognizing the validity of the universalness of the blood, yet also that agenda that would make the blood limited.

He and I agreed that the blood was universally available and I went further in presenting it applied.

I bring this up only because I am presenting what others have also considered. And how that there is room for a less narrow presentation and yet it not be a violation of Scriptures.

 

[Scott Downey]

It is indeed both.

The NT:

The blood was splattered indiscriminately and in terms of John the "propitiation" for the whole world.

However, the death and resurrection are specific for the believers and are specific in the benefit for believers.

John 3 presents "God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world, through Him might be saved." That is the all-inclusive position of the presentation of Christ.

However, John 3 doesn't stop at that point, but continues, "those that believe are not condemned, those that believe not are already condemned". This is then the limitation.

What then brings belief?

The Scriptures present that, through the delivery of the Scriptures and work of the Holy Spirit, faith comes (it is not innate in all humankind but is delivered by God to specific folks).

Ephesians, "not of works" but it is that unmerited "gift of God."

Such a gift is for a specific purpose according to His good pleasure and glory.

The OT:
In my opinion, this is the representation of the pictures from the day of atonement in the OT. Often one may focus on a single picture, and become so engrossed in that single presentation, the rest of the portraits in the gallery are ignored or considered of lesser importance.

The sprinkling of the blood was for all in the land whether they were believers or not.

However, not all were redeemed (as evident in their character and conduct and statements of condemnation by prophets) and therefore the day of atonement was both for all, and yet specific for the benefit of those who believed.


The late TCassidy would put this thinking of (specifically the blood) in terms of sufficient and efficient. Sufficient for all but efficient for only the believers.

He was from the school of recognizing the validity of the universalness of the blood, yet also that agenda that would make the blood limited.

He and I agreed that the blood was universally available and I went further in presenting it applied.

I bring this up only because I am presenting what others have also considered. And how that there is room for a less narrow presentation and yet it not be a violation of Scriptures.

'The blood was splattered indiscriminately'
Except it is not. The blood had to be applied to sanctify things. It was not random and indiscriminate.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the [remaining half of the] blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.

The passover of Exodus 12
7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it.
8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire—its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

12 ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

 

[ivdavid]

Does the Passover blood have the purpose of atonement?

 

[utilyan]

No, he doesn't. So...who is the master of the false prophets?

which they deny, heretically even.


1But 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.


The portion inside the commas is just an extra detail. for example i can get rid of it.

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


What the author is doing is giving you a DETAIL of a heresy --> even denying the Lord that bought them.

If you guys are trying to imply the MASTER is the DEVIL it would be the RIGHT move to "DENY THE MASTER"
But you would "damn yourself" for saying it is a heresy to not call the Devil Master.



BTW the chapter numbers were added by the church, not divinely inspired. No one starts with the expression "BUT" . The "BUT" here is false prophets and the paragraph before is about TRUE PROPHETS.

2 Peter 1
19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[agedman]

'The blood was splattered indiscriminately'
Except it is not. The blood had to be applied to sanctify things. It was not random and indiscriminate.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the [remaining half of the] blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.

The establishment of the covenant was established by blood, but that was not the atonement.

This is explained by the writer of Hebrews 12 in which the covenantal relationship established between God and Israel was not that same as established by God with believers.

18For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.​

The OT blood sacrifice established by Abel is insufficient and the new covenant established by the blood of the Christ is for all humankind.

But, you raised an interesting question concerning the "indiscriminately" splattering. Did Moses specifically sprinkle hundreds of thousands individually for there would not be sufficient blood and more would need to be obtained, or did he shake the tool toward the crowd (sprinkled the whole group symbolically) and in an "indiscriminate" manner?

It is my opinion, that he did the latter, but then this was covenantal and not soteriological.

The passover of Exodus 12
7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it.
8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire—its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

12 ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

The Passover of the exodus was not representative of eternal salvation, rather a picture representation of the messiah's victory over death by the messiah's substitutionary death. The power and victory over death is the focus.

It is also important to note that according to the record the blood was not withheld from any, but was sufficient for all of Eygpt, but only efficient for those in which the blood was applied.

Yet, the difference is in terms of who was the applier of the blood. In the Exodus it was the humans, at the crucifixion it was God. The limited application by humans would not have been appropriate in also limiting the blood of God.

 

[Scott Downey]

The establishment of the covenant was established by blood, but that was not the atonement.

This is explained by the writer of Hebrews 12 in which the covenantal relationship established between God and Israel was not that same as established by God with believers.

18For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.​

The OT blood sacrifice established by Abel is insufficient and the new covenant established by the blood of the Christ is for all humankind.

But, you raised an interesting question concerning the "indiscriminately" splattering. Did Moses specifically sprinkle hundreds of thousands individually for there would not be sufficient blood and more would need to be obtained, or did he shake the tool toward the crowd (sprinkled the whole group symbolically) and in an "indiscriminate" manner?

It is my opinion, that he did the latter, but then this was covenantal and not soteriological.




The Passover of the exodus was not representative of eternal salvation, rather a picture representation of the messiah's victory over death by the messiah's substitutionary death. The power and victory over death is the focus.

It is also important to note that according to the record the blood was not withheld from any, but was sufficient for all of Eygpt, but only efficient for those in which the blood was applied.

Yet, the difference is in terms of who was the applier of the blood. In the Exodus it was the humans, at the crucifixion it was God. The limited application by humans would not have been appropriate in also limiting the blood of God.

'Yet, the difference is in terms of who was the applier of the blood. In the Exodus it was the humans, at the crucifixion it was God. The limited application by humans would not have been appropriate in also limiting the blood of God.'

If God applied the blood to all of humankind, each and every person, as your saying, God passes over their destruction, they would all be saved.

The blood of Christ is applied by the faith of the individual. The blood atonement is only for the people of faith.

Romans 3:22-26
22 To wit, the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe.
23 For there is no difference: for all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God,

24 And are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness, by the forgiveness of the sins that are passed,
26 Through the patience of God, to show at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and a justifier of him which is of the faith of Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Six hour warning. This thread will be closed sometime after 10:40 pm EST

 

[Particular]

2 Peter 2:1

KJV: "the Lord"
NKJV: the Lord"
NIV: "the sovereign Lord"

ESV: "the Master"

So I guess another reason why Calvinists like the ESV.

Does the Greek word used in this verse identify Jesus as that master?

English versions really are irrelevant in this verse. I would think the Greek language is more precise.
How do you reconcile verse one with verse 3 and verse 17?

 

[Scott Downey]

Does the Passover blood have the purpose of atonement?

The firstborn of all would die, infact if you read it, every first born either of man or beast died.

This passover points to the future sacrifice Of God's Son, the Christ. So yes it points to the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Some verses about the significance of the firstborn.
Exodus 12:12
‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
Exodus 12:29
[ The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn ] And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock.
Exodus 13:1
[ The Firstborn Consecrated ] Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”
Exodus 13:11
[ The Law of the Firstborn ] “And it shall be, when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you,
Exodus 13:12
that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s.
Exodus 13:13
But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.

Matthew 1:25
and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
Luke 2:7
And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Romans 8:29
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
Colossians 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence.
Hebrews 11:28
Through faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Hebrews 12:23
to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, who are written in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

[agedman]

'

If God applied the blood to all of humankind, each and every person, as your saying, God passes over their destruction, they would all be saved.

No, the death angel was not about destruction but taking firstborn male life. The firstborn male represents the continued authority of the family. The heritage and redemption authority transferred from the father to the firstborn male.

Of course in our culture, we haven't those concepts in mind, and the redeemer in our view is quite different than that held by the ancients.

'
The blood of Christ is applied by the faith of the individual. The blood atonement is only for the people of faith.

One can think that is the appropriate presentation, but that isn't completely following the Scriptures.

Should one hold that thinking as viable, then there had to be some great storehouse of blood in which when one became a believer was doled out.

However, Christ was offered once.

Now, one must also be careful that they do not lump the aspects and facets of the atonement into a single. The blood had a responsibility that the death and resurrection do not have. The death had a responsibility that the blood and resurrection don't share...

When I post pertaining to the blood of the atonement, I am not speaking of death and resurrection.

'
Romans 3:22-26
22 To wit, the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe.
23 For there is no difference: for all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God,

24 And are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness, by the forgiveness of the sins that are passed,
26 Through the patience of God, to show at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and a justifier of him which is of the faith of Jesus.

This is an excellent passage to prove what I have been posting. Here is a more extensive part:

19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human beingc will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.​

Notice that the passage is about faith, not blood.

Yet, the word "propitiation" is used in verse 25. I understand that most folks consider the blood is being referred, but it is the place the blood is applied in which Paul is using the term, not the blood itself.

Just as God established the altar, the lampstand, the table, the ark... God established that "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a propitiation..."

How does Hebrews then treat this thinking? As shown previously:

23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
​

Again, I am not asking for an agreement.

I am attempting to demonstrate how the Scripture principle of Christ's blood may be applied to all, yet salvation only benefiting some.

Belief is not given to all.

Salvation is limited, but not all the aspects that pertain to the atonement (or day of atonement) is limited as some would present. Some are, most certainly, but the blood was not.

 

[Scott Downey]

Them in this verse refers to the people which is the church, it is not speaking specifically of false teachers as they are not of the church. The people, the 'you' are the ones bought by the Lord with His blood.

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, (the church), even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall secretly bring in damnable heresies - even denying the Lord Who has bought them (the church) - and bring upon themselves swift damnation.

 

[Particular]

Does the Greek word used in this verse identify Jesus as that master?

English versions really are irrelevant in this verse. I would think the Greek language is more precise.
How do you reconcile verse one with verse 3 and verse 17?

Contrary to some interpretations, this text does not teach that salvation can be lost or that Jesus provided atonement for all without exception. Though the connection is not clear in all translations, 2:1 seems to allude to Moses’ condemnation of Israel’s disobedience following the exodus (Deut. 32:5–6). In a sense, God did “save” all the Israelites who left Egypt by freeing them from physical bondage, but the apostasy of some proved that He did not in fact provide final salvation for all of them. By their rebellion, those lacking true faith proved ultimately that their sin had not been atoned for.

Similarly, Christ “saves” all those professing Him by gathering them into a set-apart community — the visible church. Yet not all in this community have true faith (John 6:70). Some will deny the one who has set them apart, proving that their faith is not genuine and that they were never a part of the invisible church (1 John 2:19). Jesus “buys” false teachers only in that He incorporates them into the visible church; He never atoned for their sin.

Coram Deo

Though systematic theologians generally use terms like “redemption” to refer to our ultimate deliverance from the penalty and presence of sin, the Bible uses these terms differently in some of its passages. As we saw today, that Jesus “bought” the false teachers does not mean that He atoned for their sins. If he had atoned for them, they would never be able to deny Him permanently. Spend some time today thanking God that all with true faith will not finally fall away.

Ligonier Ministries

 

[agedman]

Them in this verse refers to the people which is the church, it is not speaking specifically of false teachers as they are not of the church. The people, the 'you' are the ones bought by the Lord with His blood.

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, (the church), even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall secretly bring in damnable heresies - even denying the Lord Who has bought them (the church) - and bring upon themselves swift damnation.

I'm not certain I understand your post.

2 Peter is a book about the character of a believer. The whole book is laying out that believers must take personal responsibility to "add to their faith" certain specific characteristics (chapter 1). That in contrast to those who do not have those characteristics (chapter 2) there is a great promise and reward (chapter 3) for those who do "add to their faith."

"The church" on this earth always will consist, by the will of God, both those who add to their faith and those who are "false teachers."

I think I posted earlier on the thread that bought (the purchase) does not always mark one as a believer. Rather such a selection may be by God so that growth and maturity of believers are enhanced and that believers don't fall into complacency.

When we (as believers) consider God selecting someone, we are conditioned to also conclude that such selection is to salvation, but it is not always. In my opinion, the OT examples of certain God chose to bring education to Israel may be supportive.

 

[Particular]

I'm not certain I understand your post.

2 Peter is a book about the character of a believer. The whole book is laying out that believers must take personal responsibility to "add to their faith" certain specific characteristics (chapter 1). That in contrast to those who do not have those characteristics (chapter 2) there is a great promise and reward (chapter 3) for those who do "add to their faith."

"The church" on this earth always will consist, by the will of God, both those who add to their faith and those who are "false teachers."

I think I posted earlier on the thread that bought (the purchase) does not always mark one as a believer. Rather such a selection may be by God so that growth and maturity of believers are enhanced and that believers don't fall into complacency.

When we (as believers) consider God selecting someone, we are conditioned to also conclude that such selection is to salvation, but it is not always. In my opinion, the OT examples of certain God chose to bring education to Israel may be supportive.

Hmmm....
I think the main theme of 2 Peter is for Peter to give one last message of perseverance to the saints. He recognizes his time to see Jesus in person has come and he wants to give instruction for Godliness and also hope because Jesus is coming and when he does those who are oppressing the saints will be toasted.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed