This Quote Sums Up My Concerns

2 Peter 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."

At first glance, it would appear that Peter is implying that these false teachers were "bought" or redeemed by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and yet would suffer "swift destruction," that is to say, they were lost.

However, this is not necessarily what Peter is teaching. Compare 2 Peter 2:1 with Deuteronomy 32:5-6 - "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy father that hath bought thee? Hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

A possible understanding of 2 Peter 2:1 is that the false teachers had been "bought" by God in the same sense as the rebellious Hebrews in Deuteronomy - they were of the people that God "bought," made, established, and redeemed from slavery through the Red Sea out of Egypt, but this does not mean that they were saved by faith or redeemed by Christ's substitutionary atonement.

This comment is not meant as the final answer to shut down all debate, but it is meant as a possible interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 that would free us from the dilemma of holding that there are people for whom Christ made an atonement and yet they ended up in hell. (I am not aware that anyone on this thread said or believes that, but presumably that is the Arminian position).
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
I don't see the need to argue about the point of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as opposed to the effeciency of it.
Click to expand...

So why are you? No one else even brought it up.

And you didn't answer my question about the definition of "propitiation."
 
Ransom said:
So why are you? No one else even brought it up.

And you didn't answer my question about the definition of "propitiation."
Click to expand...
“Did Jesus die "for all"? He was functioning as the Great High Priest. Did the sacrifices made by Aaron and the Levitical priests atone for the sins of, say, the Philistines or the Amalekites? No. They were intended for the people of Israel--those for whom the priests interceded. They weren't intended for the nations that were enemies of God's covenant people…”

You brought up the sacrifices in the Old Testament and used that as a basis to say that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world. The Old Testament should be interpreted by the New Testament, not vice versa. I don’t need to twist myself into a pretzel trying to explain away the fact the blood of Christ paid for the sins of false teachers who bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them (2 Peter 2:1). I also don’t need to take a creed put together by John Calvin to tell me that the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Christ was only for believers when the apostle John flat out says the opposite of that in 1 John 2:2.

I have changed my mind about a lot of things concerning Calvinism and other things I was brought up with and even though I am in line with 99% of most Calvinists on most subjects, it doesn’t mean I have to believe every jot and tittle of any teaching when that teaching or creed doesn’t line up with plain scripture. I have great respect for Voddie Baucham, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and many other reformed theologians but no one must agree with everything. Lets leave it at that.
 
biscuit1953 said:
You brought up the sacrifices in the Old Testament and used that as a basis to say that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. You confuse sufficiency with intent, and start boldfacing at me as if I'm the one confused.

Suppose I give my friend $100 to treat himself to lunch. That same money would be sufficient to treat ten friends at McDonald's. But I have no intent to do so.

biscuit1953 said:
I have great respect for Voddie Baucham, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and many other reformed theologians but no one must agree with everything. Lets leave it at that.
Click to expand...

You use this macro so often, you don't even realize it's your canned admission that I'm right.
 
Last edited:
A pardon must be accepted. In 1830, a man named George Wilson robbed the U.S. mail and assaulted a government employee who caught him in the act. He was tried and sentenced to be hanged. However, President Andrew Jackson sent him a pardon. But strangely, Wilson refused to accept the pardon, and no one knew what to do. So the case went to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the court’s opinion, said, “A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not compete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in the court to force it on him.” And so George Wilson was hanged.

God has offered a pardon to the whole world through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross and all who refuse to receive that pardon which has been paid for by the blood of Christ will die and go to hell.
 
God is not subject to US law, and please be less obvious when you're trying to change the subject.
 
biscuit1953 said:
A pardon must be accepted. In 1830, a man named George Wilson robbed the U.S. mail and assaulted a government employee who caught him in the act. He was tried and sentenced to be hanged. However, President Andrew Jackson sent him a pardon. But strangely, Wilson refused to accept the pardon, and no one knew what to do. So the case went to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the court’s opinion, said, “A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not compete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in the court to force it on him.” And so George Wilson was hanged.

God has offered a pardon to the whole world through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross and all who refuse to receive that pardon which has been paid for by the blood of Christ will die and go to hell.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should turn to the words of Jimmy Carter who rejected Calvinist doctrine, particularly the idea that God pre-selects who will be saved. As a lifelong Baptist, his theology emphasized the importance of individual conversion and applying Christian faith to social justice issues, a stance that put him at odds with the increasingly conservative and Calvinist-influenced Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). https://sharedveracity.net/2024/12/29/living-faith-by-president-jimmy-carter-a-remembrance/
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Perhaps you should turn to the words of Jimmy Carter who rejected Calvinist doctrine, particularly the idea that God pre-selects who will be saved. As a lifelong Baptist, his theology emphasized the importance of individual conversion and applying Christian faith to social justice issues, a stance that put him at odds with the increasingly conservative and Calvinist-influenced Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). https://sharedveracity.net/2024/12/29/living-faith-by-president-jimmy-carter-a-remembrance/
Click to expand...
Most Christian leaders from the 1600’s up to the early 1900’s held strong Calvinistic beliefs from Colonial America up to the late 1800’s. The early revivals in America and vast majority of missionaries were Calvinists. Reformed Christians are less likely to be drawn away with every wind of doctrine because of their strong beliefs in the Bible and God’s sovereignty. Here are just a few examples of Five Point Calvinists.

John Newton (1725-1807)
John Bunyan (1628-1688)
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
Jonathan Edwards 1703-1758)
George Whitefield (1714-1770)
William Carey (1761-1834)
Adoniram Judson, Jr. (1788-1850)
David Livingstone (1813-1873)
David Brainerd (1718-1747)
Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) Of course he was from England.

The 293 delegates who gathered in 1845 to organize the Southern Baptist Convention all came from churches and associations which held strong Calvinistic beliefs. I don’t have any problems with Reformed Calvinists but there are some who are so focused on the sovereignty of God they completely deny the responsibility of man when it comes to salvation. I don’t believe anyone on this forum is guilty of that but there has always been a tension between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I take the stand of Charles Spurgeon and admit that I can’t explain how everything fits in but God has chosen the elect from the foundation of the world and no one deserves to be saved. If God did not choose to save some, then no one would be saved, for there is no one that seeks after God, no not one. How do I reconcile these things? I can’t. All I can do is present the gospel as Jesus commanded, pray for the salvation of the lost and trust God with the results. I have a lot of respect for Ransom and others who may vary on some of the doctrines I feel strongly about and I don’t want anyone to think that I have any ill will toward them. I would much rather have R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur as a pastor than someone like Jack Hyles. Whether Jimmy Carter was a true Christian or not is between him and God but there were a lot of troubling things he believed.

justinpeters.org

Was Jimmy Carter Truly A Born-Again Christian? » Justin Peters Ministries

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States and a self-proclaimed born-again Christian, has left behind a legacy of political, humanitarian, and
justinpeters.org justinpeters.org
 
Displaying God’s Justice and Mercy

Esther is one of only two books in the Bible in which God is not mentioned directly (the other is Song of Songs). Though He is not identified by name in this small book, He reveals an important spiritual truth in its few pages. The story of Haman and King Xerxes is a redemption story displaying both God’s justice and His mercy.

Haman is a picture of Satan, and he is called “the enemy of the Jews” (3:10; cf. Matt 10:39). His aim is “to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate” (3:13; cr. John 10:10), and he is “the adversary and the enemy” of God’s people (7:6; cf. 1 Peter 5:8). Prideful Haman was infuriated when Mordecai refused to bow to him, just as Satan desires to show himself equal to God and receive mans’ worship (Matt 4:9).

Through Haman’s influence, the king has issued a death warrant against the Jews because “they do not keep the king’s laws” (3:8). Once a decree is signed by the king, it is irrevocable. Because he is a righteous and just king, he cannot go back on his declared word. His law is immutable and His death decree must remain in place.

However, the king has a plan to render the effects of this death sentence null and void, to save the citizens of his kingdom. He issues a second decree allowing the Jews to defend themselves – giving them a way to counter the enemy’s intent and preserve their lives.

In the same way, due to Satan’s influence in leading Adam and Eve to sin, God has issued the death penalty against all mankind – because we do not keep the King’s Laws. The decree is irrevocable. Because He is righteous and just, He cannot overlook it and just change His mind. Lawbreakers must be punished, and the sentence of death must remain in place. However, God has also made a way for us to avoid the death penalty. He Himself has provided our only defense against death – Christ’s blood shed on the cross for our sins.

Note that although the king provided the way of escape, the people had to choose to take that way, or they would perish. He did not automatically spare them all, they had to respond. If they had decided not to act on the opportunity they were given, they would have died. We too must choose to accept the way of deliverance that God has provided. If we do not, we will perish. As with the gospel message, the king’s decree was “published for all people” (8:13) and as a result many Gentiles were converted (8:17).

Its also interesting that the people didn’t react by blaming the king for issuing the death decree in the first place, and then refuse to accept the solution, instead, they took the solution that was offered, and rejoiced at the life they gained with the second decree. How many unbelievers complain about God taking human life and especially about His decreeing eternal death and hell. Yet they stubbornly refuse to accept the solution He graciously offers to save them from destruction! (The Evidence Bible)
 
biscuit1953 said:
Displaying God’s Justice and Mercy

Esther is one of only two books in the Bible in which God is not mentioned directly (the other is Song of Songs). Though He is not identified by name in this small book, He reveals an important spiritual truth in its few pages. The story of Haman and King Xerxes is a redemption story displaying both God’s justice and His mercy.

Haman is a picture of Satan, and he is called “the enemy of the Jews” (3:10; cf. Matt 10:39). His aim is “to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate” (3:13; cr. John 10:10), and he is “the adversary and the enemy” of God’s people (7:6; cf. 1 Peter 5:8). Prideful Haman was infuriated when Mordecai refused to bow to him, just as Satan desires to show himself equal to God and receive mans’ worship (Matt 4:9).

Through Haman’s influence, the king has issued a death warrant against the Jews because “they do not keep the king’s laws” (3:8). Once a decree is signed by the king, it is irrevocable. Because he is a righteous and just king, he cannot go back on his declared word. His law is immutable and His death decree must remain in place.

However, the king has a plan to render the effects of this death sentence null and void, to save the citizens of his kingdom. He issues a second decree allowing the Jews to defend themselves – giving them a way to counter the enemy’s intent and preserve their lives.

In the same way, due to Satan’s influence in leading Adam and Eve to sin, God has issued the death penalty against all mankind – because we do not keep the King’s Laws. The decree is irrevocable. Because He is righteous and just, He cannot overlook it and just change His mind. Lawbreakers must be punished, and the sentence of death must remain in place. However, God has also made a way for us to avoid the death penalty. He Himself has provided our only defense against death – Christ’s blood shed on the cross for our sins.

Note that although the king provided the way of escape, the people had to choose to take that way, or they would perish. He did not automatically spare them all, they had to respond. If they had decided not to act on the opportunity they were given, they would have died. We too must choose to accept the way of deliverance that God has provided. If we do not, we will perish. As with the gospel message, the king’s decree was “published for all people” (8:13) and as a result many Gentiles were converted (8:17).

Its also interesting that the people didn’t react by blaming the king for issuing the death decree in the first place, and then refuse to accept the solution, instead, they took the solution that was offered, and rejoiced at the life they gained with the second decree. How many unbelievers complain about God taking human life and especially about His decreeing eternal death and hell. Yet they stubbornly refuse to accept the solution He graciously offers to save them from destruction! (The Evidence Bible)
Click to expand...
Careful...

If you're concluding all under sin, the remedy is repentance and baptism.

Not Zionism.
 
Ekklesian said:
Careful...

If you're concluding all under sin, the remedy is repentance and baptism.

Not Zionism.
Click to expand...
If only Trump weren't a Jewwwwwwww loving Zionist. Peace loving HAMAS could be living quietly in a quasi Disneyland today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top