a question for a Calvinist

This post was recently posted on my own website discussion forum but i thought it might serve a wider audience. I would genuinely like to hear a Calvinist response to this challenge.

[color=0033FF]There are, when taken in isolation, a number of scriptures that seem very strongly Calvinistic. By Calvinism I mean '5 point - TULIP' Calvinism. The 5 points are all fully dependent on each other as asserted by Beza, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Pink et al. So called 4 or 3 point Calvinism is illogical nonsense for the reasons given by the aforementioned in many of their discourses. It follows that to show that any one of the five points of TULIP cannot stand is to remove the entire foundation of Calvinism.

The basis of this post's assertion that Calvinism is unbiblical relates to the 'L' and the 'P' of TULIP - Limited atonement and Preservation/Perseverance of the saints.

Dos the Bible teach that a saved person can lose his / her salvation? Yes it does. We need not look at each and every candidate scripture to prove this though. One set of scriptures will suffice, namely: 2 Peter Ch2 (NKJV used at all times).

Verse 1 ends "...even denying the Lord who bought them" - can this verse mean anything other than Jesus died for the false prophets in question? If Limited atonement is correct then these false prophets are Elect according to Calvinism.

But, Verse 3 with reference to these false prophets ends "..... and their destruction doesn't slumber". And Verse 15 says "They have foresaken the right way and gone astray ....". And Verse 17 ends ".... for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever". And Verse 20 states "for if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning". What can these four verses mean other than loss of salvation for those Elect to whom verse 1 applies?

For Calvinism to be true, Verse 1 above cannot mean that the Lord died for the false prophets, i.e. they were not Elect as understood by Calvinists OR all the other verses mentioned do not say that these people who were bought by Jesus lost their salvation.

It would be straining the interpretation of scripture to the extreme to say that the Lord 'bought' someone but then say that they are not Elect according to Calvinism and what could those latter 4 verses quoted mean but that those false prophets lost their salvation? So either Limited atonement is wrong or Preservation/Perseverance of the saints is wrong - either way Calvinism falls.[/color]

That argument seems pretty watertight from where I am sitting.

Good question. I have a response to this, but have to leave for work right now. Maybe tonight, but have you checked Gill's "Cause of God and Truth"?

I can provide a response too if Michael doesn't get time, but I will defer to him for the time being.

I can hardly wait... ;-)

Let's look at 2 Peter 2 as a whole to see it is talking to:

[i]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.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. [/i]

Now let's look at the book of Jude (v4-19):
[i]
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.
Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. [/i]

2 Peter and Jude have an almost identitical description of apostates, though take note of how Jude describes the cause of their nature:
[i]Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, [u]who were before of old ordained to this condemnation[/u], ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [/i]
The word "ordained" in the greek, [i]προγράφω
prographō[/i], is defined by Strongs' as "to write previously; figuratively to announce, prescribe: - before ordain, evidently set forth, write (afore, aforetime)." If 2 Peter 2 and Jude are indeed describing the same kind of person - and I honestly think they are - then based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1-3, you've run into a fork in the road when you look at what other scriptures have to say i.e., while 2 Peter 2:1-3 may seem to be a very apt prooftext for those inclined towards arminian theology, a calvinist can rightly counter with Jude 1:4.
[i]Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? [/i]

I would like to offer this hypothesis as a means of resolution: among apostates, there are both predestined reprobates, [i]as well as God's predestined elect[/i]. What I mean is that with the latter, they are within Christ's Limited Atonment (2 Peter 2:1), but the problem is not that they lost their salvation, but that they weren't even saved to begin with.

Consider the tests for Assurance of Salvation given in [b]1 John[/b]
1. The test of correct doctrine (1 John 1:1-4)
- Correct view of sin (1 John 1:5-2:2)

2. The test of morality
- Correct view of obedience 1 John 2:3-6
- Correct view of love 1 John 2:7-17

3. The test of antichristian influence
- Departure from fellowship 1 John 2:18-21
- Denial of the Christian faith 1 John 2:22-25
- Deception of the faithful 1 John 2:26-27

4. The test of relationship between Christ and the world
- Expectation of christ’s return 1 John 2:28-3:3
- A lifestyle incompatable with the ways of the world 1 John 3:4-24

5. The testing of the Spirit
- The criteria for demonic influences 1 John 4:1-6
- Demonstrating the character of God through love 1 John 4:7-21

6. The test of fellowship
- Victory in Christ 1 John 5:1-5
- Certainty in Christ 1 John 5:6-12

The book of 1 John was intentionally written to give young believers assurance of their salvation. Contained within the verses are a holistic – as opposed to “departmentalized” – view of Christian living wherein each part connects inseparably to the other. A person who is [i]truly saved, having a new regenerated nature[/i], will definitely have these things stated in 1 John. However in contemporary Christendom, “assurance” is usually taken to mean a vocal congratulatory gesture on the part of the evangelist and/or disciple-maker pending a decision for Christ rather than an actual realization of the new nature (regardless of whether the new “convert” bears any sign of it at all).
In essence, if a person is a false convert, he checks 1 John and sees himself as a false convert and then turns to Christ. If a person is a true convert, he checks 1 John and is comforted in the security of his soul and takes joy in God, and in so doing, glorifies God. This assurance however, can only be possible if one first understands salvation from a biblical, God-centred viewpoint wherein the Holy spirit is the initiator and finisher of a believer’s regeneration and sanctification as opposed to a man-centred view that makes the believer and/or his peers responsible.
Alternatively, if one holds to a view of “easy believism” that allows for the existence of “carnal Christians” on the basis that regeneration, repentance and surrender to Christ’s lordship are supposedly optional and unnecessary, the whole doctrine of assurance is lost, and the main purpose of a whole book of the new testament (1 John) becomes useless.

Ergo, when we look at 2 Peter 2 and Jude in light of 1 John, those described fail the test miserably, and thus we can conclude that they cannot be talking about genuine born-again christians at all.

So in conclusion, when we look at 2 Peter 2:1-3 and apply it to the TULIP model, we can conclude that while the "U" and the "L" MAY be in effect, the vital "I" - Irresitable grace, that is regeneration preceding faith as per the formed view - has not (yet) taken place, hence they cannot appropriate Justification by Faith and hence receive the promise of Perseverence ("P"). As a result, they're still stuck in "T" - Total Depravity, which is why they're inclined to false teaching, because unless regenerated, they're never going to grasp the Truth of God's revelation.

[b]Practical application:[/b] Given the possibility that despite these apostates being so deep in deception, we should not lose faith that God is indeed sovereign and as such can overcome any blindness holding back the elect. Despite such a harsh indictment of apostates, Jude still gives the reader the encouragement:
Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

When it comes to those who would claim to have "been there, done that" - though in truth their fruit says that they never knew God for who is at all - we may have to go the extra mile and show a bit of "tough love."

How fewer false converts would we have in our local churches if pastors were to take 1 John at face value! The question that needs to be asked from the pulpits today is not "Once Saved, Always Saved?" or "Can salvation be lost?", but rather "What does it actually mean to be truly saved and is it true of you?"

I'm fixing to start work for the day, but if you would like to read an article that deals with several interpretations and the Greek of the text, you can check out:

http://www.the-highway.com/2Pet2.1.html

intrcssr83
Is this addressing 2 Pet 2:1?

[color=0066FF]denying the Lord who bought them[/color]

Did the Lord 'buy' these false prophets who brought in destructive heresies?

I would like to offer this hypothesis as a means of resolution: among apostates, there are both predestined reprobates, as well as God's predestined elect. What I mean is that with the latter, they are within Christ's Limited Atonment (2 Peter 2:1), but the problem is not that they lost their salvation, but that they weren't even saved to begin with.

Comment from the peanut gallery ...

[i]My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.[/i] Joh 10:27-28

I do not know that this implies that one cannot simply up and walk away, forfeit, 'fall' away. All this trigonometry and reverse explanation seems like overdose to me. To many warnings throughout scripture to the contrary. If there isn't some sort of mutual co-operation, some desire to be 'kept' ...

Being snatched implies stealing, [i]against[/i] ones own will -

"Keep" is a very biblical word and it seems to me that it has a great deal of responsibility attached to it, on our side of the equation.

phillogos,

below is Piper's response. Don't mean to suggest this is the end all answer. Maybe his input will provoke further inquiry and discussion.

p2 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.

While this is a difficult text, it is actually quite ambiguous. The case against limited atonement from this verse is not as great as it seems.

First, it is unclear exactly what Peter means when he says the false teachers were "bought." It is true that that 1 Corinthians 6:20 and other verses use "bought" as a reference to what Christ did at His death. But that does not mean that the word is used in this way everywhere it appears in Scripture.

As John Owen points out in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, the word used to say the false teachers were "bought" can be used to denote any kind of deliverance, and so does not necessarily indicate that they had been purchased by the blood of Christ. Based on the context, it may be best to understand the statement that the false teachers had been "bought" not as a reference to the death of Christ, but a reference to some other act of deliverance--such as deliverance by God's goodness from the idolatry of the world. Notice how later on Peter refers to the false teachers as having had a form of "deliverance" in that they "escape[ed] the pollution of the world" by the knowledge of the gospel (v. 20). This verse is not referring to salvation, but outward reformation with no ultimate inward reality. These people did not have their natures changed and so returned to the mud like a pig. We all know of many unsaved people who for a time reform their lives, but soon go back to their old way. In 2:20 Peter is saying that the false teachers are like that; and so in 2:1 it is possible that the "deliverance" or "purchase" of these teachers refers to their outward escape from the pollution of the world and thus does not imply anything about whether Christ had bought them by His death.

There is also another possibility. Wayne Grudem makes a good case that Peter is referring to the Exodus in 2:1. For Peter compares the false prophets that would arise in the church to the false prophets that arose in Israel: "False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you." In the Old Testament the whole nation of Israel, and thus even the false teachers in it, was considered to have been "bought" by God in the Exodus from Egypt. Through this deliverance, God "bought" the nation of Israel and thus Israel rightfully belonged to God as His peculiar people. We see this in Deuteronomy 32:6, which is the passage that Peter is probably alluding to: "Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you." God "bought" Israel not by the death of Christ but, as this text says, by forming the nation. This is evident from Exodus 15:16 as well, which speaks of the Exodus as the act of God whereby He "bought" Israel: "Terror and dread fall upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are motionless as stone; until they people pass over, O Lord, until the people pass over whom thou hast purchased."

So the nation of Israel was considered "bought" by God because of the Exodus. Since 2 Peter 2:1 is comparing the false teachers who arise in the church with the false prophets who arose in Israel, could it not be that Peter is saying that these false prophets will be from the nation of Israel--that is, those who were "bought" in the Exodus? Or, perhaps could he not be saying that these false teachers will be church attenders in a position analogous to those in Israel who had been "bought" at the Exodus?

Regardless, we see that there are many different things Peter could mean when he says the false teachers were "bought" by the Lord. Because of this ambiguity, it would not be wise to take this as a passage denying limited atonement. In fact, in light of the clear teaching elsewhere in Scripture that limited atonement is true, it would be best to interpret this ambiguous passage in light of those.

Second, it is also ambiguous whether Peter is referring to God the Father or Christ as the Lord who bought them when he says that they will "even deny the sovereign Lord who bought them." In fact, it is likely that the "sovereign Lord" who Peter says had bought these false teachers is a reference to God the Father, not Christ. This is because in the following verses God the Father is spoken of and the Greek word for Lord used here is never used of Christ, but only of the Father (see John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ). This understanding is also most in line with the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:6, where God the Gather is in view and is said to have "bought" Israel.

If Peter is saying that God the Father bought these false teachers, it cannot be a reference to the atonement. Why? Because the atonement was made by Jesus, not the Father. Thus, here is another reason that it is likely that the purchase spoken of here is not a reference to the death of Christ.

Third, it is ambiguous whether Peter is speaking of the reality of a purchase, or according to the appearance of a purchase--that is, their outward appearance and profession. In other words, the verse may mean, "denying the Master who [they say] bought them [but really didn't]," or it may be intended to confirm that these false teachers would come from within the visible church. To speak of them as "bought," then, wouldn't mean that Christ had died to save them, but that they occupied a position that is supposed to be occupied only by those who have been bought.

So we have seen that there are three large ambiguities in 2 Peter 2:1. First, it is unclear whether the purchase of these false teachers is a reference to the death of Christ or not. Second, it is unclear whether the one who "bought" them is even Christ or simply the Father. Third, it is unclear whether Peter is speaking according to reality or appearance.

Because of these huge ambiguities in 2 Peter 2:1, it is not a solid text against limited atonement. There are many things it could legitimately mean, and so it would not be wise to stand on it as an argument against limited atonement.
hilogos,

the following is a reply from John Piper to the question. Not submitting this is the end all but it may provoke further inquiry or discussion.

Thanks Taylor
I read the article. A comment of Luther about Jerome came to mind... he laboureth abundantly but leaveth it unexplained. ;-)

To summarize, please correct me if I am wrong, his suggestion is that the 'bought them' phrase is relating to Israel as the Covenant people of God rather than to the 'false teachers among you'. I can follow his reasoning but I am completely unconvinced by it. It seems to me that the target is clearly the 'false teachers among you'.

The attaching of this phrase to Christ the Sovereign Lord rather than Christ the Mediator really seems to smack of the worst tweaking that I usually expect to find among the dispensationalists. I think this is a plain candidate for Occam's Razor and I doubt that Peter's readers would have had the sophistication to split hairs in this fashion.

The article seemed to be aimed at refuting the 'modified Calvinisits' rather than those like myself who take a position slightly to the left of Arminius. ;-) Where would you stand with this? Are you a Universal Redemptionist or a Particular Redemptionist?

Comment from the peanut gallery ...

We may find that there is greater nutrition in peanut than in the deliberations here. :-) In a sense your comment belongs to a different part of the discussion. Personal responsibility is another topic where Calvinists and others disagree but this discussion is on the L and the P rather than on the I of TULIP.

So the nation of Israel was considered "bought" by God because of the Exodus. Since 2 Peter 2:1 is comparing the false teachers who arise in the church with the false prophets who arose in Israel, could it not be that Peter is saying that these false prophets will be from the nation of Israel--that is, those who were "bought" in the Exodus? Or, perhaps could he not be saying that these false teachers will be church attenders in a position analogous to those in Israel who had been "bought" at the Exodus?

this is suggested in the URl that Taylor gave. I reject it for the reasons already mentioned in my reply to him.

If Peter is saying that God the Father bought these false teachers, it cannot be a reference to the atonement. Why? Because the atonement was made by Jesus, not the Father. Thus, here is another reason that it is likely that the purchase spoken of here is not a reference to the death of Christ.

Third, it is ambiguous whether Peter is speaking of the reality of a purchase, or according to the appearance of a purchase--that is, their outward appearance and profession. I

philologos:
>>>Verse 1 ends "...even denying the Lord who bought them" - can this verse mean anything other than Jesus died for the false prophets in question?

Very nice point!

Could you post a link to your website please where this is being discussed.

Philogos,

What about a meaning to 2Peter1:9 that is within the atonement prophesied by Caiaphas in John 11:51-52. What if Jesus "bought" this salvation for the Jewish nation which would incorporate the false teachers that were Jews of that time. This would restrict Peter's references to the false teachers to the teachers and believers of the time he was speaking. If this were so, I realize that the atonement of the Jewish nation would necessitate a realigning of the idea of atonement for Jews which I haven't really thought through but I think that the line of thought is not totally against Scripture.

Here I was going to post something on the definition of revival thread and seeing the name Philologos I find part of it fits as well here.

Piper: [i]"...it cannot be a reference to the atonement. Why? Because the atonement was made by Jesus, not the Father."[/i]
Philologos: [i]"The payer of the propitiation is plainly the Father, the payment that was made was the Son. Rom 3:25"[/i]

Had Abraham sacrificed Isaac, who would you say paid, Abraham or Isaac?
Is the Father in the Son? Is the Son in the Father?
Most plainly in Rom 3:25, God .... set forth.

This is a little thing and perhaps a different letter so I am not saying there is revival in this thread. Just looking.

whyme on 2008/12/10 15:52:56

What if Jesus "bought" this salvation for the Jewish nation which would incorporate the false teachers that were Jews of that time. This would restrict Peter's references to the false teachers to the teachers and believers of the time he was speaking. If this were so, I realize that the atonement of the Jewish nation would necessitate a realigning of the idea of atonement for Jews which I haven't really thought through but I think that the line of thought is not totally against Scripture.

Isn't this suggestion just going to cause your view even more trouble?

Had Abraham sacrificed Isaac, who would you say paid, Abraham or Isaac?
Is the Father in the Son? Is the Son in the Father?
Most plainly in Rom 3:25, God .... set forth.

Technically the word used for 'propitiation' here is 'the place of propitiation' or the propitiatory but most folk would say that doesn't change the issues. God [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4388&t=KJV]set forth[/url]; that could be translated 'put into place' the propitiatory. The one who pays the bill here is clearly 'God'. The price of 'giving a son' is, in a sense, an even greater price that giving yourself. This is the way the scriptures express the truth... God so loved the world that he gave His Son...

Philogos,

I'm not trying to support a view but rather examine Scripture. I'm not taking a shot at defending anything. You raised the issue of the L in TULIP. I am just asking you to look at John 11:51 and see that the Scripture says that Jesus died for the Jewish nation and God's "children" scattered abroad. Either the the reference to children is universal to the mankind or it is not. I think it is not a universal reference but intended to refer to those who are born again.

The next point of the discussion was to try to resolve the text of 2Peter that you very legimitately raise. Can 2Peter be read to be consistent with John 11:51. I think it can if you restrict the passage reference to Jewish teachers ( who would repudiate the lordship of Christ ) as those who were " bought".

I thought that trying to make Scripture interpret Scripture was a useful exercise but I read in your response that I came off as defensive. I'm not, you are obviously wiser than I am in these things ( I mean that sincerely ) but I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.

Philogos,

I'm not trying to support a view but rather examine Scripture. I'm not taking a shot at defending anything. You raised the issue of the L in TULIP. I am just asking you to look at John 11:51 and see that the Scripture says that Jesus died for the Jewish nation and God's "children" scattered abroad. Either the the reference to children is universal to the mankind or it is not. I think it is not a universal reference but intended to refer to those who are born again.

The next point of the discussion was to try to resolve the text of 2Peter that you very legimitately raise. Can 2Peter be read to be consistent with John 11:51. I think it can if you restrict the passage reference to Jewish teachers ( who would repudiate the lordship of Christ ) as those who were " bought".

I thought that trying to make Scripture interpret Scripture was a useful exercise but I read in your response that I came off as defensive. I'm not, you are obviously wiser than I am in these things ( I mean that sincerely ) but I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.

I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.

Ah, I see, I used the wrong smilicon... I meant ;-) not :-)

I am just asking you to look at John 11:51 and see that the Scripture says that Jesus died for the Jewish nation and God's "children" scattered abroad. Either the the reference to children is universal to the mankind or it is not. I think it is not a universal reference but intended to refer to those who are born again.

edit.. and if so.. what about Judas?

Philogos,

I had another thought that your input would be helpful to. In John3:16 that you referenced in a prior post, is the phrase "God gave His only begotten son" a reference to God giving his Son to the world to know and have union with or a more restricted giving His Son on the Cross for salvation. It occurs to me that God gave his Son to the world for everyone to know Him eternally. For those who would believe Jesus is God would have eternal life. The means of eternal life for those who believe is Christ's paying the price for forgiveness of sins and our glorification. If that is so, then under either Arminianism or Calvinism, belief in Christ as the Son of God and as Him who was sent from God(see John 17:8 )determines whether you will be saved and Christ's death on the cross was only necessary for those who would believe. Thus you can have a universal offer of knowing Christ but Christ would only have to be punished only for those who believe He is who He says He is and deisre Him.

Thus, limited atonement is entirely consistent with a free and universal offer of God giving His Son when you view the cross as means of effecting the accepted gift versus the gift itself.

Hi Philogos,

For me, the context of 2 Peter 2:1 points in the direction of this verse implying that Christ had bought false prophets in a personal, salvific sense. In addition to this verse, I find the references in the Bible that speak of Christ dying for the 'whole world' suggestive of a universal atonement. For instance, 1 John 2:2 says, "And he is the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Another verse which suggests, as 2 Peter 2:1 does that false prophets had been 'bought' is Acts 13:46, "Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles."

When Paul said that people "judge yourself unworthy of eternal life", this seems to imply that there had been the possibility for these people to find salvation in Christ, but they rejected it.

As far as what Calvin believed on the atonement, I have come across quotes of his which seem to be in favour of a universal atonement, though it's possible that he changed his view on these passages at a later point. Regarding John 1:29, he wrote, "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."

Again, I'm not implying that Calvin did not believe in a particular atonement, but am bringing this verse up for discussion, to get a better understanding of where statements such as these stood, in relation to his final stance on things.

In Jesus,
John

I am wondering whether the Jewish nation is more in line with the discussion Paul has in Romans about Jewish people which I've never quite understood as it relates to their election and how that relates to individuals. Is that a corporate reference or individual? If corporate, then Piper's comment about apparent purchase has some greater bearing although certainly not close to conclusory.

I've tried to interpret John 11:51 with limited abilities. How do you interpret it from the atonement perspective. Did Caiaphas' prophesy just fail to encompass the full extent of those Jesus died for?

It occurs to me that God gave his Son to the world for everyone to know Him eternally. For those who would believe Jesus is God would have eternal life.

I am wondering whether the Jewish nation is more in line with the discussion Paul has in Romans about Jewish people which I've never quite understood as it relates to their election and how that relates to individuals. Is that a corporate reference or individual? If corporate, then Piper's comment about apparent purchase has some greater bearing although certainly not close to conclusory.

I've tried to interpret John 11:51 with limited abilities. How do you interpret it from the atonement perspective. Did Caiaphas' prophesy just fail to encompass the full extent of those Jesus died for?

Again, I'm not implying that Calvin did not believe in a particular atonement, but am bringing this verse up for discussion, to get a better understanding of where statements such as these stood, in relation to his final stance on things.

Philogos,

If the universal offer is knowing Christ, rather than salvation, then the offer can be made and salvation need only be provided for those who God knew, either through foreknowledge by choice or by predestination ( either one for purposes of limited atonement ) would choose to believe His Son.

He can present His Son to the world, ( like the parable of the Husbandman and the vineyard ) and the world can either hate Him or love Him. It can believe or suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Whoever believes will not perish because God has made provision for eternal life for them, whoever would not believe ( regardless of the causation debate ) then there is no necessity for God to make provision. What seems real about this perspective is that a universal offer and command of belief in His Son can be made. If the offer is the gift of salvation, then God's offer would be problematic on a universal basis for the Calvinist persuasion unless the offer is worded in a way to tell them salvation is available to those who would believe and then ask as Spurgeon suggested do you believe, if so, then Christ died for you.

some different views on this passage; they may not satisfy the questions that has been raised, myself think scripture is plain and simple to understand, as Paul Washer says " If the bible says ,The barn is red it means that the barn is red" So I think it means just what it says :-)

But I think these two "thoughts" upon scripture can be edifying to read.

[i]
Sermon 61 - The Mystery Of Iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7)

20. St. Peter wrote about the same time "to the strangers," the Christians, "scattered abroad through" all those spacious provinces of "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia" Minor, "and Bithynia." These, probably, were some of the most eminent Christians that were then in the world. Yet how exceeding far were even these from being "without spot and blemish!" And what grievous tares were here also growing up with the wheat! Some of them were "bringing in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them:" (2 Peter 2:1 &c.:) And "many followed their pernicious ways;" of whom the Apostle gives that terrible character: "They walk after the flesh," in "the lust of uncleanness, like brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed. Spots they are, and blemishes, while they feast with you;" (in the "feasts of charity," then celebrated throughout the whole Church:) "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest, for whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever." And yet these very men were called Christians, and were even then in the bosom of the Church! Nor does the Apostle mention them as infesting any one particular church only; but as a general plague, which even then was dispersed far and wide among all the Christians to whom he wrote!

21. Such is the authentic account of "the mystery of iniquity" working even in the apostolic Churches! — an account given, not by the Jews or Heathens, but by the Apostles themselves. To this we may add the account which is given by the Head and Founder of the Church; Him "who holds the stars in his right hand;" who is "the faithful and true Witness." We may easily infer what was the state of the Church in general, from the state of the seven Churches in Asia. One of these indeed, the Church of Philadelphia, had "kept his word, and had not denied his name;" (Rev 3:8;) the Church of Smyrna was likewise in a flourishing state: But all the rest were corrupted, more or less; insomuch that many of them were not a jot better than the present race of Christians; and our Lord then threatened, what he has long since performed, to "remove the candlestick" from them.

John Wesley[/i]

------------------

[i]Means to quicken us to pray with more fervour for the leading of the Holy Spirit

Means to quicken us to pray with more fervour for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

First Means. Let the dread of those scriptures which set forth the danger of errors and false doctrines fall upon thee, that thou mayest not think thou goest upon a slighty errand, when praying to be preserved from them, as if the odds were not great, whether thou hast thy request or hast it not. It is one of the devil's master-policies, by sinking the price of errors in the thoughts of men, to make them thereby the more vendible. Many think they shall not pay so dear for an error in judgment as for a sin in practice. Yea, some have such a latitude, that they fancy a man may be saved in any religion — a principle that must needs tend to make them that hold it careless and incurious in their choice. That sin shall not want customers which men think they shall pay little or nothing for. Some can be content to be drunk on free cost, that would not, were they assured their own purse should pay soundly for the reckoning. How comes fornication to abound so much among the Romish clergy, but because it is counted so petty a sin by them? And I wish that error and heresy — which are the fornication of the mind — were not by many among ourselves sized as low. But woe to those clerks of the devil's market, that tempt and toll men on to sin by setting cheaper rates on their head than the word of God hath done. If once the dread of a sin be word off the conscience, no wonder then if we see men as boldly leap upon it, as the frogs in the fable on the log, that lay so still and tame at the bottom of the river. Fear makes the body more apt to take infection, but it preserveth the soul from the infection of sin.

Now that thou mayest the more stand in fear of drinking in the poison of any corrupt and unsound doctrine, let thy mind ponder on a few scriptures, which show both their detestable, and also damning nature of them. Gal 5:19, there heresy is called 'a work of the flesh,' and reckoned among those sins which shut the doors of them out of heaven; 'they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,' ver. 21. They are called 'doctrines of devils,' 1 Tim 4:1. And if they come from the devil, whither must they lead but to hell? Such as are against the fundamental principles of the gospel are inconsistent with the love and favour of God. He that 'abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God,' 2 John 9. And who, think you, shall have him that hath not God? Were there no other scripture against this kind of sin, but that one, 2 Peter 2:1, it were enough to strike the heretic through his loins, and make the knees of every seducer, like Belshazzar's at the sight of the 'handwriting on the wall,' to knock one against the other. '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.' So that if a man hath a mind to get the start of other sinners, and desires to be in hell before them, he need do no more than open his sails to the wind of heretical doctrine, and he is like to make a short voyage to hell of it; for these bring upon their maintainers 'swift destruction.' Nay, the Spirit of God, the more to aggravate their deplored state brings in three most dreadful instances of divine vengeance that ever was executed upon any sinners, viz. the detrusion of the apostate angels from heaven to hell, the drowning of the old world, and the conflagration of Sodom and Gomorrah by raining hell, as it were, out of heaven upon them. I say, he brings these as patterns and pledges of that vengeance which shall certainly befall this kind of sinners. And by this time I hope thou wilt be warm in thy prayer against this dangerous enemy. But,

Second Means. When thou hast thus possessed thy heart with the dread of being led into any corrupt opinion, then strengthen then thy faith from those comfortable scriptures which assure thee that no sincere saint shall be left to fall finally into any soul-damning error. Christ is as able for, and faithful in, his prophetic and kingly offices, as his priestly. Surely he will not have the least care of his people's understanding, which is guide to their whole man, and is that faculty which he first practiseth upon in the work of conversion. Thou hast therefore as strong ground to believe he will preserve thee from damnable principles as damnable practices. It would be little advantage to be kept from one enemy, and left open to the will and power of another. Christ's hedge comes round about his people. Solomon tells us, 'The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the Lord shall fall therein,' Prov 22:14. And so is the mouth of the seducer, who comes with strange doctrines — whorish opinions. Now who is this pit digged for? Indeed, if we look at Satan's design, it is a trap chiefly laid to catch the saint; he would, if possible, 'deceive the very elect.' His greatest ambition is to spread his banners in this temple of God, and defile them whom God hath washed. But if we eye God's intention, it is a pit he suffers to be made for hypocrites and false gospellers — such who would never heartly close with Christ and his truth. These are they whom God abhors, and therefore they are left by him to become a prey to those that go a birding for souls with their corrupt doctrines. 'Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness,' 2 Thess 2:10-12. These, like the outsetting deer, are shot, while they within the pale are safe; or, like the suburbs, taken by the enemy, but those within the city escape their fury. It is the outward court that is left to be trampled underfoot, Rev 11:2. And in the fore-quoted place in the epistle to the Thessalonians — though he gives up hypocrites to be deceived by false teachers, as once Ahab by those knights of the post his false prophets — yet, ver. 13 he speaks comfortably to the elect, and shows that the same decree which appointed them to salvation provided also for their embracing the truth, as the necessary means leading thereunto. 'But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.' And if God had got possession of the head by his truth, and of the heart by his sanctifying grace, he will keep them out of Satan's clutches.

Go, therefore, and plead the promise for thy preservation. The promise improved by faith at the throne of grace will be thy best antidote in these times of general infection. Never fear speeding when the promise bids thee 'go and prosper.' The mercy is granted before thou askest it; only God will have thee by prayer lay claim to it, before thou beest possessed of it. And for thy help I have set down some sweet promises of this nature, with which, if thou acquaintest thyself, thou mayest be furnished both with grounds for thy faith, and arguments for thy prayer in this case, Matt 24:24; John 7:12; 10:5,29; 1 Cor 11:19; Phil 3:15; 1 John 2:19,20.[/i]

William Gurnall

This passage of scripture is often produced as a proof both of the saints’ final and total apostasy,[1] and of universal redemption; or that, besides those that are saved, Christ died also for them that perish. Dr. Whitby[2] mentions the several answers which different men give to these words: one says, Christ bought these persons only to be slaves; another, that he died to rescue them from temporal, but not eternal punishments; a third, that he died for them because he gave a sufficient price for them; a fourth, that they denied that Lord whom they professed to have bought them; and a fifth, that they denied him, who, in the judgment of other men, had bought them. Upon which he observes, that they are so extravagant, that it is as easy to confute as to recite them.

1. I do not think myself concerned to defend any of these senses of the text mentioned, judging neither of them to be the meaning of the words, and so have nothing to do with the reasonings made use of in the confutation of them; though, perhaps, the two latter are not so extravagant as represented. However, in order to give the genuine sense of this text, let it be observed,

2. [b]That Christ is not here at all spoken of; nor is there one syllable of his dying for any persons, in any sense whatever.[/b] The word despo>thv, Lord, does not design Christ but God the Father of Christ. The only places besides this where this word is used, when applied to a divine person, are Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Jude 1:4, Revelation 6:10, in all which places God the Father is plainly intended, and in most of them manifestly distinguished from Christ; nor is there anything in this text or context which obliges us to understand it of the Son of God; nor should this be thought any diminution of the glory of Christ, since the word despo>thv is properly expressive only of that power which masters have over their servants; whereas the word ku>riov, which is used whenever Christ is called Lord, signifies that dominion and authority which princes have over their subjects. Besides, Christ is called King of kings, and Lord of lords, and the only Potentate; yea, God over all, blessed for ever. Moreover,

3. When these persons are said to be bought, the meaning is, not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for, as is before observed, Christ is not intended. Besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense of it; (see Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; Eph.1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 14:3-4), whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind. Add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ, are never left to deny him, so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ’s purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for naught. But,

4. The word buying regards temporal deliverance, and particularly the redemption of the people of Israel out of Egypt; who are therefore called the people the Lord had purchased. The phrase is borrowed from Deuteronomy 32:6; 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? Nor is this the only place the apostle Peter refers to in this chapter; (see vv. 12, 13, compared with Deuteronomy 32:5). Now the persons the apostle writes to, were Jews, the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithyna, a people who, in all ages, valued, themselves upon, and boasted mightily of their being the bought, purchased people of the Lord; wherefore Peter makes use of this phrase much in the same manner as Moses had done before him, to aggravate the ingratitude and impiety of these false teachers among the Jews; that they should deny, if not in words, at least in works, that mighty Jehovah, who had of old redeemed their fathers out of Egypt, with a stretched out arm, and, in successive ages, had distinguished them with peculiar favors; being ungodly men, turning the grace, the doctrine of the grace of God, into lasciviousness Hence,

5. Nothing can be concluded from this passage in favor of Christ’s dying for them that perish; since neither Christ, nor the death of Christ, nor redemption by his blood, are here once mentioned, nor in the least intended. Nor can these words be thought to be a proof and instance of the final and total apostasy of real saints, since there is not anything said of these false teachers, which gives any reason to believe that they were true believers in Christ, or ever had the grace of the Spirit wrought in their souls.

- John Gill, Cause of God and Truth

f the universal offer is knowing Christ, rather than salvation, then the offer can be made and salvation need only be provided for those who God knew, either through foreknowledge by choice or by predestination ( either one for purposes of limited atonement ) would choose to believe His Son.

Knowing God is another metaphor for salvation. I am happy with a 'universal offer and command of belief in His Son' but unless this is a mere theatrical gesture I can see no connection between this and a propitiatory sacrifice which only had the names of the elect upon it.

Ron,

As I'm sure you know, verse 3 goes with verse 2.

since you have given him authority over all flesh, [b]to give eternal life [u]to all whom you have given him.[/u][/b] - John 17:2

Grace to you,
Taylor

by TaylorOtwell on 2008/12/10 18:24:36

This passage of scripture is often produced as a proof both of the saints’ final and total apostasy,[1] and of universal redemption; o...

As I'm sure you know, verse 3 goes with verse 2

Yes, the whole quotation is from Gill.

I think Gill is saying that this verse has [b]absolutely nothing[/b] to do with the cross of Christ. It is an allusion to Old Testament terminology - Deut. 32:6.

I think Gill is saying that this verse has absolutely nothing to do with the cross of Christ. It is an allusion to Old Testament terminology.

Hi Taylor,

While it's true that, "The Lord that bought them" could refer to God's deliverance of Israel, I think we need to be open to the phrase having reference to Christ's purchase of sinners, through his death on the cross. 2 Peter refers to these false prophets teaching 'damnable heresies' and "denying the Lord that bought them" is presented as the epitomy of their heretical teachings which brings destruction upon them. I would see 'denying Christ' as being more in line with the ultimate heretical teaching, as compared to 'denying God's deliverance of Israel'. It seems like the phrase, "denying the Lord that bought them" is talking about 'denying the Lord' rather than 'denying the Lord's deliverance'.

In Jesus,
John

I think he is and I am singularly unimpressed by his reasoning.

Fair enough. You asked for how Calvinistic interpreters would exegete this passage, and that was provided.

I think Gill is saying that this verse has absolutely nothing to do with the cross of Christ. It is an allusion to Old Testament terminology - Deut. 32:6.

John Piper, "Notice how later on Peter refers to the false teachers as having had a form of "deliverance" in that they "escape[ed] the pollution of the world" by [b]the knowledge of [u]the gospel[/u][/b] (v. 20)."

[b]2 Peter 2 (KJV)
20.[/b] For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world [b]through the knowledge of the [u]Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ[/u][/b], they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

How did they escape the corruptions in the world? Through "the knowledge of the gospel" which is "the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

[b]John 17
3.[/b] "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

BoG,

There doesn't seem to be any room in 2Peter2 to describe the false teachers as ever having been believers. First, they deny the Sovereign Lord and second they are described as sows that return to the mud and dogs to their vomit. A believer would never be described as a sow or a dog. I find that the P of TULIP is not in any way affected by this passage. The "L" portion of Philogos' initial inquiry does encounter questions under this passage. The knowledge of the Gospel is not the equivalent of "knowing" the Lord. It is contained in it, but it is not the whole of it in this context.

The knowledge of the Gospel is not the equivalent of "knowing" the Lord. It is contained in it, but it is not the whole of it in this context.

[Edit: this is not merely "knowing" the Lord, but much more knowing ([i]epignosis[/i]) the Lord and [b]Saviour[/b] Jesus Christ.]

Fair enough. You asked for how Calvinistic interpreters would exegete this passage, and that was provided.

I don't write this in anger but in genuine disappointment.

There doesn't seem to be any room in 2Peter2 to describe the false teachers as ever having been believers.

A believer would never be described as a sow or a dog. I find that the P of TULIP is not in any way affected by this passage.

Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ps 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

For Jesus to ask means He had to die for the whole world. The Father gave the whole world to Jesus because He was crucified for all but would only be affective to those who believed.

Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus is Lord over all.

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

It seems clear from these scriptures that the only thing that could be true about limited atonement is in it's affect. The atonement is limited in the fact of only being able to benefit those who believe.

Jesus Christ owns this world because of his sacrifice that the Father Has given all things into His Hands. All power AND AUTHORITY Has been given to Jesus from the Father. He is coming back in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord because they did not believe.

The word of God is clear that Jesus himself having paid the price of blood on the cross for everyone but can only be effectual to those who believe.

The very reason that Jesus is in (2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:) is because He paid the price of redemption and owns this world. He is glorified in those that believe and will punish those who know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It makes no sense at all to punish people with everlasting destruction if there was no way they could know God or obey the gospel in the first place.

[b]Ron,[/b]

Regarding reading everything through a Calvinistic "mincer":

I would suggest that we are simply interpreting seemingly confusing verses in light of verses that aren't confusing at all - like "I lay down my life for my sheep". As we examine the rest of the Scriptures, there is plenty of evidence that the Lord propitiated for a certain group of people, and that those people will certainly be saved.

Working with the plain definition of "propitiation" and "atonement" - we find it impossible Christ could have made propitiation for people that are in hell. If Christ bore the wrath of God for someone, and God is satisfied with that payment, that sinner is now accepted before God. Of course, God has predestined means as well as ends. The means of repentance and faith being such, and the Lord will certainly bring those means to pass in all of his sheep.

So, although you claim that "plain reading" has to do with Christ buying sinners on the cross, the verse does not necessitate such a view, and I believe the rest of Scripture would contradict such an interpretation. Therefore, we must seek to offer a plausible view that is consistent with the rest of the Scripture.

May the Lord guide us both into truth, and show us our errors from Scripture if we are wrong.

With Care In Christ,
Taylor

Re:
TaylorOtwell said:

"I would suggest that we are simply interpreting seemingly confusing verses in light of verses that aren't confusing at all".

There is nothing remotely confusing about 2PeterCh2v1 unless you don't want to believe it. Then of course it becomes very confusing and difficult for you.

And for all those who like to quote John 10:28 "...because you are not of my sheep" - you need to read to the end of the chapter where you will come across verses 37,38 where we find Jesus, speaking to those exact same Jews who he has just said were not of His sheep, explaining to them how they can become of His sheep.

Welcome to the forums, Thomas.

Thank you for your comment, however, it doesn't help us much, as all I have to do is turn it around and claim that you are the one that doesn't want to "believe it". Of course, what this verse actually means is the topic of this discussion.

So, simply because one doesn't see it your way doesn't mean were trying to disregard the text. Hopefully all here have a genuine desire to know the truth of the Sctipture.

Grace to you,
Taylor

Working with the plain definition of "propitiation" and "atonement"

Because what I have written is long, I have made it available as a nicely formatted page, with an audio version as well. Go to, [url=http://theopenlife.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-covenant-and-2-peter-2.html]The New Covenant in 2 Peter 2[/url].

Philologos, I apologize I have not been able to respond sooner. I'm doing the 5am-1:30pm shift at work, which leaves little time with necessary duties included. Please accept my weak attempt to explain what better men have before attempted. If at any time I am forthright, it is the move of conviction and not of strife. With you, my brother, I may contend but I shall not be contentious. My prayer is to Christ, for the help of His Spirit who opens our minds to comprehend the scriptures.

Let us look first to the text,

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be [b]false teachers[/b] among you, [b]who privily shall bring in damnable heresies[/b], even [b]denying the Lord that bought them[/b], and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

The so-called problem of 2 Peter 2 is found in the word 'bought' being applied to evident reprobates. This construct gives the appearance of an ineffectual atonement, one which neither successfully purchased the elect nor propitiated the Father. However, I believe the issue which seems at first to be a blot on the doctrines of grace is found at last to be a smear on the glasses of him who reads it, and like all scriptures is more easily understood with a view unobstructed by native presuppositions. May God by these words remove scales.

I take the purchase here mentioned to be covenantal and to deal with broader aspects of the New Covenant than the particular atonement for sin. By 'covenantal', one must understand that every covenant includes terms, together with promises of rewards or penalties, but not every covenant guarantees the moral means of fulfilling those terms. For instance, consider the Old Covenant made with the nation of Israel. This covenant was ten commandments written on stone tablets:

"He wrote upon [b]the tables[/b] the [b]words of the covenant, the ten commandments[/b]." - Exodus 34:28

"When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the [b]tables of the covenant[/b] which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
1And the LORD delivered unto me [b]two tables of stone[/b] written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the [b]tables of the covenant[/b]."
-Deuteronomy 9:9-11

The ten commandments received at Mount Sinai functioned together as the foundation document for the nation. Specifically, the covenant was an if/then agreement promising life to those who perfectly heeded its terms, and judgment to those who erred. What the ten commandments, as a covenant, did not provide was the moral impetus to fulfill the terms perfectly. For this reason, the law which was good in itself became a yoke and burden to the people upon which it rested.

"Now therefore, [b]if ye will obey my voice indeed[/b], and [b]keep my covenant[/b] [ten commandments], [b]then[/b] ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."
-Exodus 19:4-6

In Galatians 4, Paul highlights the burden of the terms of the Old Covenant when he refers to the ten commandments in their covanental function, as "bondage" to Mount Sinai. It is important to note that he is not speaking here about the ceremonial law, though that too is dispensed as an obsoleted administration of the Old Covenant, but of the ten commandments themselves as a covenantal system. If this were not the case, his reference to Sinai would be irrelevant:

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under [b]the law[/b], do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had [b]two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman[/b]. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was [b]by promise[/b]. Which things are an [b]allegory[/b]: for [b]these are the two covenants[/b]; the one from the [b]mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage[/b], which is Agar. For this [b]Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia[/b], and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." - Galatians 4:21-25

And so we see the ten commandments as a life and death covenant are a burden impossible to bear. They promise life to anyone who keeps them perfectly, but "all have sinned", and the "wages of sin are death." Because the law cannot remove sin nature, it offers no help to the already fallen man. Though the terms are clear, the moral will is not present to fulfill them. The promise is true, but the requirements are impossible for ones born of Adam.

With this understanding of covenantal terms and promises, we come to 2 Peter, and the New Covenant established by Christ's death. It is imperative to understand that there was more than one object to be accomplished in the crucifixion.
[1] The first object was the creation of a New Covenant with new terms.
[2] The second was the propitiation of God's justice for those, and only those, who would fulfill the terms.

First we shall deal with the object of creating a New Covenant with new terms. By his death and resurrection Christ [b]purchased the terms of the New Covenant[/b] for all the world, and in this sense He has the rightful place as sole "Savior of all the world, especially of them that believe." [1 Tim. 4:10] Which is to say, He is the only Savior held out, the only Snake lifted up, the only Way, Truth, and Life by which men are directed to come to the Father, and that His salvation is only apprehended through belief. Herein lies the essence of New Covenant terms. Those who would have life must cease from law-righteousness, accepting the atonement to provide through faith the imputed righteous of Christ to all who believe on Him.

These terms are illuminated by Christ Himself, particularly in the sign of the New Covenant,

"The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took [b]bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, [b]Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you[/b]: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, [b]This cup is the new testament [covenant, GRK] in my blood[/b]: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

Whereas the Old Covenant said, "fulfill the ten commandments and you will have life," the New Covenant says, "believe on Christ, who fulfilled the law and bore its curses, and you shall have life." This belief is more than bare intellectual assent to the historical facts, but is likened by Jesus to "eating" the Substitute, that is, inwardly appropriating the Covenant Head.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, [b]Except ye eat[/b] the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, [b]ye have no life in you[b]. Whoso [b]eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day[/b]. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 [b]He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.[/b] 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so [b]he that eateth me, even he shall live by me[/b]. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: [b]he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever[/b]."

By faith one must partake of Christ's atonement; that is, one must inwardly receive his afflictions and sufferings under God's wrath to be a satisfactory means of life. One must eat of this broken body and spilled blood by trusting it to be a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of those who it atoned for, namely of all who will believe. So again there are clear terms in the New Covenant, and these terms could not have existed unless Christ was "broken" and "poured out."

This leaves the final question, in what sense does the New Covenant buy reprobates such as those described in 2 Peter 2? We glance at the text again, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be [b]false teachers[/b] among you, [b]who privily shall bring in damnable heresies[/b], even [b]denying the Lord that bought them[/b], and bring upon themselves swift destruction." This purchase refers to some deliverance, such as the children of Israel were 'bought' from Egypt, and implies a due moral response which these are denying. Calling to mind the multitude who were lead through the Red Sea and yet perished in the wilderness, we remember that there are deliverances unto terms and promises, as well as unto life. The children of Israel were pictured escaping from utter hopelessness, to be saved at last only through perseverance in hope. They were delivered from bondage up to a decision, and their response would determine their fate.

This is to teach us that Christ's New Covenant holds out a great hope to the Jew and the Gentile. The son of Jacob has not kept the ten commandments, yet he could have faith in Christ if only he would. And the Gentiles who were formerly "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and [b]strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world[/b]" [Ephesians 2] are given access by faith in Christ to the very holy of holies. The whole world has been delivered from the impossibility of the personal righteousness required by the Law, up to the hope of imputed righteousness in Christ by faith. And like the wanderers in the wilderness, there are many now presented the means of escape by the gospel who will die in unbelief. The promised rest lies ahead of them, the Manna is offered. They should eat and live, if only they would take it. In this sense Peter says, verse 20, "It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." They are ones with much light, who will receive greater stripes for their refusal of the terms. They are ones bought by Christ's death from utter hopelessness under the law, unto the promise of life by faith - the "way of righteousness" - who turn back from the light lest their deeds be exposed.

And so, my understanding is that 2 Peter 2 deals with false converts who were aware of the [b]terms[/b] of the New Covenant, made an outward profession, and yet forsook the offer of life given by the covenant. They did not fulfill the terms and so were not saved. That they were false converts is plain enough by the description of them. The least ambiguous text in 1 John says plainly that, "They [false professors] went out from us, but they were not of us; for [b]if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us[/b]: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that [b]they were not all of us[/b]." These heard the terms, "Eat and live, forgo and die," but chose for themselves the momentary dainties of the present world.

To add a final word, which is addresses in greater detail elsewhere, I would only mention that there was something else which occurred in the crucifixion. As Jesus was broken and poured out, sealing the New Covenant terms, he was also reconciling God to His Church. For these something more was won. By atoning for their sins, Christ purchased the right to regenerate the souls of sinners. By this work, His Spirit brings to life dead men, rebirthing their natures after the Spirit who bears them, and calling forth faith out of unbelief. By grace he gives the moral impetus by which men become willing to repent and believe on Christ.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that [b]I will make a new covenant[/b] with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [b]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers[/b] in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; [b]which my covenant they brake[/b], although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But [b]this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel[/b]; After those days, saith the LORD, [b]I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.[/b]" - Jeremiah 31:31-34

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, knowing [b]it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to His good pleasure[/b]." Philippians 2:12-13

"But [b]God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us[/b], Even when we were [b]dead in sins[/b], hath [b]quickened us together with Christ[/b], ([b]by grace ye are saved[/b];) That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For [b]by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast[/b]. For we are his [b]workmanship, created in Christ Jesus[/b] unto good works, which God hath [b]before ordained[/b] that we should walk in them." - Ephesians 2:4-10

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, [b]Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us[/b], by the [b]washing of regeneration[/b], and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being [b]justified by his grace[/b], we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." - Titus 3:4-8

May God bless the reader with the joy of the gospel of grace.

With love in Christ,
-Michael:.

Openlife
Thank you, and for the blog link.

I think you are concentrating on the Redemption: Accomplished and Applied concept. I accept this concept unreservedly. The issue remains however on the pattern of the 'application'. Some time ago I opened a thread on the [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1212&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Red Heifer[/url] which, like most of these threads, eventually ran into the sand and disappeared. However this thread is still my position on the distinction between atonement achieved and atonement applied.

The nature of the application of the Atonement was always dependent upon 'confession of sin' and until the soul is brought to that place of acknowledgment the effect of the Atonement is held in prospect. The same truth was contained in the ceremony of the Red Heifer and in the fulfillment of these types in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice. If time were not an element the effect of that Atonement would operate automatically forwards and backwards and would have brought the consummation of the age at the moment He cried it is finished.

Thanks for reading, Philologus. I'm off to work (at 4:16am) but will try to catch that thread later. Deep thoughts.

A believer would never be described as a sow or a dog. I find that the P of TULIP is not in any way affected by this passage.

The reason is that you have already made up your mind about the correctness of TULIP. What you are saying is 'I have made up my mind and must interpret this evidence in the light of my convictions'. You are applying previous conclusions to the data discoverable in this verse. What it needed is a willingness to include this verse in the data BEFORE the conclusions are made.

Philogos,

Thanks for the reply and the rebuke. I probably should have been more explanatory. If Peter describes these false teachers as sows returning to the mud, then we must ask if they were ever saved. The context of the passages in view speak to such teachers as having a knowledge of God that allows them to escape the pollutions of the world (eg., sows being cleansed from the mud ). Is it not possible that one can have a knowledge of the gospel that permits an external cleansing but does not affect a change of the heart? If so, then the picture of a sow being cleansed by association with the gospel but ultimately returning to its preferred mud hole seems to make sense. The examples and warnings of Scripture make this abundantly possible I think. The parable of the wheat and tares for example and the warnings of Jesus in Matthew 7 concerning those whom Jesus claims " I never knew you" in spite of the professors protests to the contrary being obvious examples. Thus, my conclusion that you would not call a believer a sow or a dog but rather you would call such a one a false professor. You clearly seem to hold the belief that all those who hold contrary to the Arminiast position are close minded. Unfortunate but I'm sure that there are plenty of examples to prove your point. The same critique can be leveled the other direction as well, but I think it is better in sincere discussions to not throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater and dismiss all Calvinists as close minded.

You clearly seem to hold the belief that all those who hold contrary to the Arminiast position are close minded.

Is it not possible that one can have a knowledge of the gospel that permits an external cleansing but does not affect a change of the heart? If so, then the picture of a sow being cleansed by association with the gospel but ultimately returning to its preferred mud hole seems to make sense. The examples and warnings of Scripture make this abundantly possible I think.

This is pretty simple really. Some people are in heaven, becuase their sin has been atoned for, and other people are in hell, because their sin has not been atoned for. So here we have Christ having died and atoned for the sins of some, leaving the sins of others unatoned for. The atonement unto salvation therefore is limited to those who are saved.

I am pretty aware of the Calvinist view of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement. The difference is in the point of response. Calvinists believe that salvation will happen automatically at some point to those who are elected. I believe that prevenient grace will enable a man to hear and respond to the gospel and that if the man does not respond he is accountable for the loss of salvation rather than it being the consequence of a divine script.

People are 'in heaven' because they responded to the wedding invitation.

Considering the freeness of the offer, it truly is amazing that so many either don't have or don't want to having EVERLASTING life.

Philogos,

A couple of follow up questions. Could you please identify from 2Peter2 why the false teachers are believers? Second, is the individual going to held liable by God for the sin of unbelief because they refuse to believe they are forgiven or because they reject Christ for who He claimed to be?

I am pretty aware of the Calvinist view of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement. The difference is in the point of response. Calvinists believe that salvation will happen automatically at some point to those who are elected. I believe that prevenient grace will enable a man to hear and respond to the gospel and that if the man does not respond he is accountable for the loss of salvation rather than it being the consequence of a divine script.

Ron,

There may be some over-simplification going on here. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your post implies that the Calvinist views salvation as has happening automatically (without the use of means). You didn't say this, but I just wanted to clarify in case the position is misunderstood. We believe that God has predestined the means for salvation as well as the end. Those whom he has mercifully chosen out of the mass of sinful humanity are predestined to faith and repentance, and ultimately, the kingdom prepared for them since the foundation of the world.

Ultimately, both the Arminian and the Calvinist limit the atonement in some sense. The Arminian limits the atonement [b]qualitatively[/b], while the Calvinist limits it [b]quantitatively[/b]. In other words, in the Arminian view, the atonement of Christ makes salvation possible for all men, while the Calvinist position actually secures salvation for some men.

However, we find in the Scriptures that God has "bought the church with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). And, the atonement actually secures the salvation of those who were, by God's glorious grace, were "ordained to everlasting life" (Acts 13:48). Therefore, we conclude that Christ did not purchase a possible reservoir of salvation for the entirety of mankind, but rather purchased the church, those who were predestined to adoption and redemption in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1).

Grace to you,
Taylor

Here is a loooonnnnggg reply to this question. Have fun. :-)

[url=http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html]Alpha and Omega[/url]

Old_Joe wrote:

What is amazing is that one can have such a wonderful offer and refuse it. You are a good example, you have the offer of EVERLASTING life, but instead you have chosen interuptable life, temporary life, or a mere POSSIBILITY of having EVERLASTING life. Why would you do that?

Old Joe

[i]... the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.[/i]

Ron,

Why doesn't the "them" in 2Peter2:1 refer to the "people" ( ie believers ) instead of as alleged, the false teachers? The following "themselves" would refer to the false teachers. Is there something in the Greek that would preclude that? At the risk of interpreting the passagethrough a system rather than as intended, that delineation seems to make sense.

What is amazing is that one can have such a wonderful offer and refuse it. You are a good example, you have the offer of EVERLASTING life, but instead you have chosen interuptable life, temporary life, or a mere POSSIBILITY of having EVERLASTING life. Why would you do that?

er, excuse me?

A couple of follow up questions. Could you please identify from 2Peter2 why the false teachers are believers? Second, is the individual going to held liable by God for the sin of unbelief because they refuse to believe they are forgiven or because they reject Christ for who He claimed to be?

If you can lose your salvation, it is not very EVERLASTING is it?

There may be some over-simplification going on here. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your post implies that the Calvinist views salvation as has happening automatically (without the use of means).

Ultimately, both the Arminian and the Calvinist limit the atonement in some sense. The Arminian limits the atonement qualitatively, while the Calvinist limits it quantitatively. In other words, in the Arminian view, the atonement of Christ makes salvation possible for all men, while the Calvinist position actually secures salvation for some men.

However, we find in the Scriptures that God has "bought the church with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). And, the atonement actually secures the salvation of those who were, by God's glorious grace, were "ordained to everlasting life" (Acts 13:48). Therefore, we conclude that Christ did not purchase a possible reservoir of salvation for the entirety of mankind, but rather purchased the church, those who were predestined to adoption and redemption in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1).

If you are preaching that salvation can be lost, that obviously means you believe your salvation can be lost which means that you do not have EVERLASTING life.

So you think eternal life is just longer?

Ron,

I know it but is any of the means my responsibility?

The Scriptures seem to indicate so. Even though it is the Lord's power that works this in believers, they are still commanded to repent and believe. The Puritans and other reformers seem to agree with this view also.

I know that too, but the implications are not minor. If some were elected to salvation are some elected to perdition? I am utterly unable to believe in a God who would do this.

Some men were left in the wickedness of their sin, while some were graciously elected out of it. The only trouble I have regarding believing in this God, is that of believing his mercy can be so great as to choose [b]anyone[/b]. It seems to me that the mass of humanity is often characterized in some morally neutral fashion, which, as I'm sure you would agree, is not true.

The 'church' is the total complement of those who have received God's pardon. It is not a fixed number of souls specified in some fictitious decree.

A clear reading of Ephesians 1 shows that it is a fixed number of persons, elected and predestined by the grace of God. Also, I'm not sure how else to interpret the words "ordained to eternal life" other than some are ordained to eternal life, which would obviously mean others are not ordained to eternal life, but justly left in their sin.

Grace to you,
Taylor

Interesting article on the Red Heifer philologos; I will have to browse through the rest of that thread.

I hope the following helps focus our discussion on this thread. As far as I am understanding the Calvinist doctrine of election, it focuses specifically on those who shall in very fact inherit eternal life. Then this view which is regarding "salvation to come" is retrospectively applied to the moment of "salvation by faith". And this is indeed a proper and true message of the gospel.

The Arminian doctrine (as far as I am understanding) focuses on the "salvation by faith" and then progresses (perserveres) unto "salvation to come". And those who perservere unto the end are the elect (this is the exact same teaching as the Calvinist but from the opposite perspective). However, from this perspective their arises the question of whether or not it is possible for one to begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh. That is to be cleansed from sins and then to return to the enslavement of former sins. To use that previous parable/metaphor, the dog consumed its own vomit (which previously had proceeded out of its bowels) and this may be taken as a representation of inward defilement; and the sow as an outward defilement. Either way it should be noticed that "It has happened to them (these false teachers) according to the true proverb". That is to say, they were not parabled as sows and dogs until after they had returned to their formers ways and not prior to this degeneracy. Again, this does not challenge the doctrine of election and predestination but is strictly a question of the doctrine of perserverance.

In my opinion Calvinism does not supply an adequate response for those who "return to their own vomit".

[b]2 Peter 2
20.[/b] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
[b]21.[/b] For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

"For if, [b]after[/b] they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
This implies they have already escaped the defilements of the world (referring to the lusts of the flesh through which sin entered the world). And they had escaped through the knowledge of the gospel, which is the knowledge of Jesus the Christ as both Lord and Savior. This may very well mean that the dog vomitted up its bitter meal (purging its inward parts) and the sow was washed clean (cleansed from dead works), which is a parable of regeneration. Perhaps it might be of consideration to quote the following verses:

[b]Matthew 18
27.[/b] "And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. . . .
[b]32.[/b] "Then summoning him, his lord said to him, `You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
[b]33.[/b] `Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
[b]34.[/b] "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
[b]35.[/b] "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Is it possible then to be forgiven of one's debt of sin (which is death) and then to have that debt reinstated? Obviously this would disqualify them from being counted among the elect but does this necessitate that they were never truly forgiven by the King?

Now this brings us back to the question; the King indeed forgave the debtor the "unpayable debt" and yet we see that the King's forgiveness of transgressions did not have the proper effect upon the debtor's heart. Is this not comparable to the verse which reads, "even denying the Master who bought them"? So then, was the King's forgiveness of debt ineffective?

Is it possible that the King's forgiveness did not impute the debtor's justification and salvation?

Some men were left in the wickedness of their sin, while some were graciously elected out of it.

A clear reading of Ephesians 1 shows that it is a fixed number of persons, elected and predestined by the grace of God. Also, I'm not sure how else to interpret the words "ordained to eternal life" other than some are ordained to eternal life, which would obviously mean others are not ordained to eternal life, but justly left in their sin.

Sure, EVERLASTING life begins at salvation and it doesn't end. That's the EVERLASTING nature of it. If not according to John 17:3 one doesn't even know God or Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, and has no business preaching.

There is an 'edge' to some of your statements which is antagonistic; if it continues my contributions will not.

Many of the provisions of the Old Covenant were 'for ever'; the food of the priests, the fire on the altar, the burning of the lamps... but all those things which were 'for ever' ended because of a broken covenant.

My 'clear reading of Ephesians' shows me no such thing

Does it not always come down to this? What is clear to one is muddy to another. Someone earlier on this thread mentioned how we should just accept scripture for what it says, “If the barn is red…it is red” (paraphrase). The only problem is that not everyone sees it as red. What is plan and simple to one is a garbled mess and confusing to another.

This is not to you personally Ron, just putting it out there so to speak.

Grace and peace

The things you mention didn't end, they were fulfilled "for ever" in Christ. Likewise, so is salvation.

Eternal life is qualitatively different not just longer. It is divine life and by grace we may become partakers of it. If we refuse to become partakers of it we shall lose it. Eternal life is not a lump of life but a stream which flows from the throne, if we abandon it we shall thirst... everlastingly.

This will be my last reply to your posts.

This is not to you personally Ron, just putting it out there so to speak.

A fellow named Scott emailed me with this comment:

----
Have you given any thought to my post that the “them” in “bought them” refers back to the people in the first part of the verse. The “themselves” would still be capable of being directed at the false teachers. If you did the substitution, then 2Peter2:1 would read like this,

“ But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought God’s people (ie., believers )---bringing swift destruction (not on the people) but on themselves, the false prophets.”
The solid internal consistency resulting from this application seems a strong indication that the “them” is the “people”.

----
I replied,

Scott, thanks for reading my post and taking time to write. Actually, I only briefly considered the passage in the way you suggest. While I think the option has certain merits (it's certainly easier to explain), I do find an issue. Being no Greek expert, I can only look at the English phrase, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" and see what appears to be a connection between "them" and "themselves", as the same persons. Because destruction is coming upon the persons called "themselves", it makes sense that "them" refers to the heretics.

The preceding phrase, "there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you" could be suggestive of "them" being used to describe God's people, as you wrote. But, in the first place, the switch from "you" to "them" seems unnatural if it relates the same people, because it would then sound as if God's purchase of national Israel, which are the people among whom these false prophets were mentioned, is separate from the buying of the present "you" to whom Peter writes. That interpretation only works if the buying is strictly in reference to the deliverance from Egypt, which, I believe, was John Gill's view. However, even this view seems to disconnect "them", which in this case would mean "the former false prophets" from "themselves", which would be the present false teachers of which Peter warns. By this understanding, the phrase would become, "there were false prophets also among the [national] people [of Israel], even as there shall be false teachers among you [the Christian Church], who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought [the false prophets who were among the national people of Israel], and bring upon themselves [i.e., the present false teachers] swift destruction. This only confounds the verse to my mind, saying that present teachers are somehow denying the Lord who bought the former false prophets. While that is true in the sense we have described earlier, it is less obvious to me than the way I have presented.

Does that make sense?

Thank you again, and may God bless us with understanding.
In Jesus name,
Mike:.

This is Young's Literal translation...

[color=0033FF]And there did come also false prophets among the people, as also among you there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in besides destructive sects, and the Master who bought them denying, bringing to themselves quick destruction,[/color]

The phrase 'there did come' is conveying the sense of the Greek word 'ginomai' which means 'come into being'. This is pointing to a point at which 'among the people' 'false prophets came into being'. It is strange to our ears but it is a normal construction.

The phrase 'and the Master' is the Greek conjunction 'and' which is often translated as 'also' as in the KJV.

The normal grammar would mean that a pronoun represents the nearest noun to it. This is not absolute but is the norm. In that case the 'them' would refer to the those who had brought in the destructive heresies. The clinching argument is really that word 'kai' translated 'also'. In other words this gives us two pieces of information about these 'false teachers among you'; first, that they will bring in 'destructive heresies' and second, consequently, that they will be those who are (currently) 'denying the Lord who had bought them'. This is literally 'denying the having bought them Lord'.

It can't sustain Scott's suggestion. The tenses are interesting...

The false prophets were among them, uses the past tense as would be expected for this reference to ancient Israel. The tenses used for the false teachers are present participles ie they are denying the Lord that bought them AND bringing upon themselves swift destruction. These present participles plainly belong to the 'false teachers'.

Hope you can understand all that. I may have been too pedantic/

I submit the following for peer-review. This is not an indication of established truth but of researching the matter. Please, keep in mind, these discussions are not for the sake of curiosities, as they amuse us, but for bringing about a clearer understanding of the ministry of the Gospel, in how we ought to effectively plead with the consciences of sinner's.
[b]ie.[/b] if we believe we can convince people into heaven then we speak accordingly; however, if we believe that all we may do as ministers of the Gospel is convince people, by the awakening of the sinner's conscience, that they are enemies of God separated from the Life of the Holy Spirit, already condemned to the second death with the wrath of God abiding upon them, without hope in the world, lovers of self and haters of God, and have no power within themselves to be reformed or to provoke God unto mercy, then we speak accordingly.
And this discussion gives us some clarification, in part, as to how far (not length of time) we may expect a sinner to continue in godly grief which produces a repentance that leads to salvation until they are shut up to the barrier of God's monergism; at which point there remains only the total reliance of faith upon the mercy of God in Christ. (It should also be noted that "godly sorrow" is a gift that comes from God, as well as the gift of faith. Yet, I stand to reason these monergstic gifts must be synergistically preserved and cultivated covenantally.)

To deal with the dog and its own vomit, it's pretty straightforward. After his vomiting the dog is still a dog. Were the dog to be changed into a human . . .

Likewise for the regenerate with the life of Christ imparted to them. When they have everlasting life, they no longer desire their own vomit. As dogs, only those who have stopped short of the saving change will have a desire to return to the vomit they have previously spewed out.

Not one of us has achieved sinless perfection, and God as our Father allows/sends these to bring us back into right relationship with Him, when we by our sin, have caused His withdrawal.

Would this not be the same as the redeemed sinner (dog), if even temporarily, returning to his former sins (vomit)? The difference is not that we do not still desire our former sins (such is the torment of this cursed flesh, [b]2 Peter 2:7[/b]). For no good thing dwells in my flesh, and yet here it remains until the time of our Lord's appearing and I do groan and suffer in my soul waiting expectantly for the salvation of my body. The difference is that by the grace of God we may put to death the deeds of the flesh daily, and overcome the desires of temptation by diligently pursuing the desires of the Holy Spirit in righteousness -- hungering and thirsting for His righteousness in Christ Jesus, wherefore He has promised that we shall be filled and satisfied in Him.

I know quite a few people that having heard of Christ and the Judgment to come have become very strict religious moralists, yet remain outside of Christ.

All His children have experienced this upon being convicted of sin (whether unforgiveness or something else); the tormenters come, and come quickly robbing us of peace until we pay that which is due, a humbling of ourselves before God in repentance.

So where is the differance Joe?

I have decided to make an admission, after considering this over; I have decided that it is not altogether accurate to say that the vomitting dog and the washed sow is a parable for "regeneration" -- though it is certainly a necessary condition leading to regeneration (edit: or perhaps, it is to be understood as a part of regeneration. That is, to take regeneration in parts: 1) to remove the old and 2) to establish the new.)

[b]Matthew 12
43.[/b] When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
[b]44.[/b] Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
[b]45.[/b] Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Which would parallel the statement of Peter, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them."

So, I guess, this would lead us to the question: after a person is washed clean by the forgiveness of sins, what would hinder them from being filled with the Holy Spirit? Have they not been set free from their former enslavement? Is it possible they would have a [b]freed[/b]-will to choose good at this point? As Jesus said,
[b]John 8
11.[/b] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
[b]John 5
14.[/b] Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Now of course, a freed-will to sin no more will not bring salvation, much less regeneration, because "sinning no more" does not bring holiness. As there is a concrete demarcation between seeking His face [b]and[/b] turning from our wicked ways. I am convinced that regeneration is a divine act of God; I agree with monergistic regeneration. Yet, I also believe the entire human life is synergistic with the Holy Spirit interposed with God's divine monergism. This is a connotation of relationship, which may be a good (faith) relationship or bad (unbelief, resisting the Holy Ghost) relationship; such does not give preference of the Love of God one over another but rather only signifies the preferential love which a man may have towards God.

[b]Luke 7
40.[/b] And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
[b]41.[/b] There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
[b]42.[/b] And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
[b]43.[/b] Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
. . .
[b]47.[/b] Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
[b]48.[/b] And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
[b]49.[/b] And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
[b]50.[/b] And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

So then, let us consider, what is lacking between someone who has been forgiven their sins, being swept clean and put in order, and someone who has "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" been saved "so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according [b]to the hope[/b] of eternal life"?

[b]Romans 8
23.[/b] And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
[b]24.[/b] For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
[b]25.[/b] But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Is it then not reasonable that there are many who shall not make certain of their election "having forgotten his purification from his former sins"? And those who's love ([i]agape[/i], a love only received through the forgiveness of sins; [i]agape[/i] is that love which is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost) shall wane cold through offense ([b]Matthew 24:12[/b])?
[b]Matthew 24
13.[/b] But he that shall endure (perservere) unto the end, the same shall be saved.

How might you diligently pursue the desires if they are not there and if you truly believe that no good thing dwells in your flesh? If God doesn’t first work it in you, is your flesh in which no good thing dwells able to put to death the deeds of the flesh? No! If God has worked it in you in the beginning why do you think He will stop when Phil 1:6 says He won’t stop?

Regeneration ought to have changed your desires.

"The bitter root of all sin is that man is become god unto himself, lord of his own heart."

Is this not what you are teaching when you teach that man must hold on to his own salvation? Is this not man being lord of his own heart?

You don’t lose salvation every time you sin and then get it back again later.

The Holy Spirit does the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). If the man was regenerated, the Holy Spirit would be dwelling there. The filling of the Holy Spirit is entirely another matter altogether.

Outward religiosity can temporarily sweep the house, but it cannot keep it clean.

Even Christ’s enemies were granted the ability to expel demons Matt 12:27, yet they preached not salvation.

How then, with such a supernatural change as the one described, can one lose it?

At the end I have to ask:
What reason do you have to believe that someone that has been supernaturally regenerated by the very Spirit of God, with new desires imparted, will not persevere unto the end?

This article was recommended to me by a brother here on SI, in response to my concerns for "presumption" of salvation.

[b]The Almost Christian Discovered;
Or, The False Professor Tried[/b]

By Matthew Mead, 1661

"You almost persuade me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28

(excerpt)

[b]Question I.[/b] How far a man may go in the way to heaven—and yet be but almost a Christian? This shown in twenty several steps.

[b]1.[/b] A man may have much knowledge—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]2.[/b] A man may have great and eminent spiritual gifts—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]3.[/b] A man may have a high profession of religion, be much in external duties of godliness—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]4.[/b] A man may go far in opposing his sin—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]5.[/b] A man may hate sin—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]6.[/b] A man may make great vows and promises, strong purposes and resolutions against sin—and vet be but an almost Christian
[b]7.[/b] A man may maintain a strife and combat against sin—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]8.[/b] A man may be a member of a Christian church—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]9.[/b] A man may have great hopes of heaven—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]10.[/b] A man may be under visible changes—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]11.[/b] A man may be very zealous in matters of religion—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]12.[/b] A man may be much in prayer—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]13.[/b] A man may suffer for Christ—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]14.[/b] A man may be called by God and embrace his call—and yet be but an almost Christian
[b]15.[/b] A man may have the Spirit of God—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]16.[/b] A man may have faith—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]17.[/b] A man may have a love to the people of God—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]18.[/b] A man may obey the commands of God—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]19.[/b] A man may be sanctified—and yet be but almost a Christian
[b]20.[/b] A man may do all the external duties and worship which a true Christian can—and yet be but almost a Christian

. . .
[b]2. Know this—that natural conscience is capable of great improvements from the means of grace.[/b] Sitting under the ordinances may exceedingly heighten the endowments of conscience. It may be much [i]regulated[/i], though it be not at all [i]renewed[/i]. It may be [i]enlightened, convinced[/i]—and yet never savingly [i]converted[/i] and changed. You read in Hebrews 6:4, of some that were "once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit." What work shall we call this? It could not be a [i]saving[/i] work, a true change and [i]conversion[/i] of state; for, notwithstanding this enlightening, and tasting, and partaking, yet they are here said to [i]fall away[/i], verse 6. Had it been a true work of grace—they could never have fallen away from that. A believer may fall—but he cannot fall away. He may fall foully—but he cannot fall finally; for, "underneath are the everlasting arms." His faith is established in the strength of that prayer of Christ, that our faith fail not. Nay, he tells us expressly, that it is eternal life which he gives—from which we shall never perish. This work, then, here spoken of, cannot be any [i]saving[/i] work, because it is not an [i]abiding[/i] work; for those who are under it, are said to fall away from it.

But though it be not a saving work—yet it is a [i]supernatural[/i] work. It is an improvement made by the Word upon the consciences of men, through the power of the Spirit; and therefore they are said to "taste the good Word of God," and to be made "partakers of the Holy Spirit." They have not the Spirit abiding in them savingly—but striving with them, and working upon them convincingly, to the awakening and setting conscience on work. And conscience, thus stirred, may carry a man very far in religion, and in the duties of the gospel—and yet be but a [i]natural[/i] conscience.

A common work of the Spirit, may stead a man very much in the duties of religion, though it must be a [i]special work of the Spirit[/i] which gives a man salvation.

-----------

I find this a fascinating statement. It is far more than most here, I should say, would ever so admit to the work of the Holy Spirit upon a condemned soul. If we stand convinced that God has sovereignly damned these souls as reprobates, then why fill them with the Holy Spirit only to depart from them at the last? Is this truly an accurate desciption of grace; or is this not more akin to the arminian position? For what reason shall we give for a Spirit-filled believer being not savingly wrought upon?

I will have to read the rest of the article another day, I am interested to see what this section entails. While I am unlikely to be altogher convinced of the previous argument I am always open to hear of how we may discern the spirit of a man, whether or not they stand as Caleb, "because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully".

[b]Question III.[/b] If a natural conscience may go thus far, then what difference is there between this natural conscience in hypocrites, and a renewed conscience in believers?