|
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
I have been studying the Biblical doctrine of election for approximately 5 - 6 years now. The main area of this doctrine that I'm trying to understand and interpret properly (because many have not) is the subject of eternal security. There are many verses that are used by many to support the belief of "conditional security." One that has intrigued me the most is 2 Peter 2:1- key words being "Master" and "bought." I have found that "Master" in Greek is "despotes" in this verse, as opposed to "kurios" - the two being quite different in meaning. But "bought" (agorazo) has me a little stumped. I am a strong advocate in the Biblical doctrine of eternal security. So I know that a verses like this require diligence in studying and proper hermeneutics. Can anyone give some feedback on this passage?
[I am in no way an Arminian, neither do I consider myself a Calvinist. Notice how I termed it "Biblical doctrine of election." I have a few Calvinist friends and know of many others who tend to put more emphasis on John Calvin and his "tulip" than the pure Word.] |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
This brief reply will not answer every part of your question. But I just wanted to thank you very much for using the term "Biblical doctrine of election." It's the same term I use. However, whenever I address the Biblical doctrine of election, people reply using the word Calvinism, although my definition and defense of election never uses the term Calvinism.
. . . It is as if those who don't believe in Calvinism also don't believe in ANY doctrine of election. They deny that election is a Bible doctrine. They deny the existence of the elect.
. . . This, in spite of the fact that in the NIV, for example, the words elect, election, choose, chosen and chose appear 250 times. While not always referring to election for salvation, the majority of the occurences of the words choose or chosen are speaking of God's choosing, not man's. On the other hand the word "freewill" is used 22 times in the entire Bible and always in connection with the word "offering(s)".
. . . This mentality actually surprises me. I always thought that while not every Christian defines election in the same way, at least every Christian does believe in election, define it as you will. Guess I was wrong.
. . . If you read the attacks on election at this website, you may be dismayed at the closed-mindedness of the opponents of election. It seems that, in general, those who attack election have no clear understanding of what it is or what it means. But that doesn't stop them from having very strong emotional reactions when you use the word "election."
. . . Surprisingly, I've seen little or no debate over Eternal Security vs. Eternal Insecurity. Once that gets started you will have more people talking without listening.
. . . I was brought up to believe in the idea that a believer can fall from grace and lose his salvation. When I was 20 years old, the first time anyone told me about Eternal Security, it seemed so Scriptural AND logical, that I had no trouble accepting it. But, I must say it has taken decades to get rid of all the old thinking that you have to do something to get, keep, or add to your salvation. Now I know that Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8,9 are the final word on the subject. Both of them are saying in plain English that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Or, put another way, we are saved by grace through faith plus nothing.
Thank you so much for your input. I hope to read more Q. and A. that you submit. |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Most people that have a problem with the doctrine treat it as if the Bible doesn't teach it at all or that it's an isolated subject. When I first studied it, I found that every time I did research, I kept finding verses all over the New Testament - from the Gospels, thoughout Acts, and scattered all throughout the Epistles. And the Calvinist were just too dogmatic about Calvin (TULIP, Institutes, etc.). Don't get me wrong. It's good to have supplemental study guides and resources from the reformers on up to assist in doctrinal studies, but not so much that you put greater emphasis on the reformers themselves and their teachings over the Scriptures and the illumination of the HOLY SPIRIT.
But, what about "agorazo" or just the entire verse? |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Since you brought up the topic of Eternal Security, could you please interpret how 2 Peter 2:20 suggests Eternal Security?
(2 Pet 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.)
To me, this is clearly saying that a believer can lose his salvation.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but everyone that I know that believes that it is possible to lose your salvation also believes FIRMLY that you are saved by faith alone and NOT by any works. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you cannot lose your salvation because you are saved by faith alone. Those are two completely different thoughts. Since the above verse says that a believer can fall away and since Jesus says that no one can steal your salvation away from you, then the only way that I can see of losing your salvation would be for a believer to (for some strange reason) renounce Jesus and turn back to the ways of the world. And since a believer can fall away then that kind of blows the election doctrine as you believe it.
As far as the 250 times you quote that "elect" type words appear, Are you kidding? Did you actually look them up. (it's really easy to do using this site - try it) I personally think you just read a post from another user and took for granted that it must be gospel - probably the same way you came to believe in the Doctrine of Election. Of those 250 times, you will actually only find a few that can be used to support the doctrine (until you read it in context). As far as "Free Will" goes, this is a term used to describe all the examples throughout the bible just as Trinity is a word you won't find in the bible but is a word we use to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being separate and the same.
Yes, God has his Elect. They are called believers and ANYONE and EVERYONE can become one if they choose to accept Christ.
How about Romans 10:9-11? That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
Please re-read that last sentence a few times. How can you honestly, (logically and spiritually) not believe that ANYONE and EVERYONE has been given the opportunity to be saved? |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
2 Peter 2:1" 'who bought them.' The terms which Peter used here are more analogical than theological, speaking of a human master over a household. The master bought slaves, and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign. (For an OT parallel, see Deut. 32:5,6, where God is said to have bought Israel, though they rejected Him.).
. . ." Doctrinally, this analogy can be viewed as responsibility for submission to God which the false teachers had refused. Beyond this, they are probably claiming that they were Christians," and "that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation. Thus, the passage is describing the sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny His lordship over their lives."
. . . (John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, Nashville:Word, 1997) |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
If you CAN read,...I mean, if you WILL read 2 Peter 2:1, you will plainly see, if you are acquainted with the English language, that the chapter is speaking of "false teachers...who will secretly bring in destructive heresies." FALSE TEACHERS, not born again, blood washed, Holy Spirit sealed believers.
. . . The reason I FIRMLY believe that we are saved by faith alone and NOT by any works is because the Bible repeatedly says so in plain, unambiguous English. See Rom 3:28; Eph 2:8,9.
. . . Your question: "How can you honestly, (logically and spiritually) not believe that ANYONE and EVERYONE has been given the opportunity to be saved?"
. . . My answer: I NEVER said that I did not believe that ANYONE and EVERYONE has been given the opportunity to be saved.
. . . Hello? At 2:53 PM today, I posted the following:
. . . What I agree with is the plain and clear teaching of the Bible that says: "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:15,16 KJV). Many Scripture verses teach the same truth. (See Mt 10:32; 12:50; 16:25; Mark 8:34; 12:8; John 4:14; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Rom 9:33; 10:13; 1 John 4:15; 5:1; Rev. 22:17.)
. . . We learn what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS.
. . . In other Answers and Notes on this website, I have quoted many Scriptures to define and defend the Bible doctrine of election. I said "Bible doctrine of election." I did not say "Calvinism." To throw out that buzzword is to confuse the issue of the Bible doctrine of election.
. . . Does the Bible teach hyper-Calvinism? Some say yes, others say no. I say the Bible DOES teach a doctrine of election, label that doctrine what you will.
. . . jg8ball, my final word to you is "Good-bye". Adios. Sayanora.
|
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
No, I neither could nor would quote 2 Peter 2:20 to prove Eternal Security. Besides, I don't need to. There are more than enough Scriptures to support Eternal Security to any open minded person. I would no more use 2 Peter 2:20 in support of Eternal Security than you would use Luke 14:2 to prove Eternal Insecurity. |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Guffaw! LOL! RoFL! I just looked up Luke 14:2. Howl! Cacchination! (regaining composure) chuckle, chuckle.
This discussion reminds me of me. Bless both of you saints. I am not Calvin's disciple, nor am I his 'pendulum swing' opposite number, Arminus' follower. I think both these guys let brains and brawn get out of hand, and denied the Spirit. I read with great interest these comments, and quite a few others in this line. I despise compromise for the sake of 'making everybody happy,' because obviously you cannot. However, I do believe the truth in this matter probably incorporates both arguments, in a much simpler manner than we are accustomed to. If Jesus were asked, He might answer, "Who?" Much in the same way, Paul asked, "Apollos who? Paul who?" (I Corinthians 3:4-9) Perhaps the word 'Election' with a capital "E" is the problem, or at least a great contributor. In a general sense, I must believe that God, without favor, offers the hope of salvation to all, regardless (irregardless? There IS such a word) of gender, race, location or situation. Knowing all things, God knows who will 'be there' at the final trumpet. There are there by His Grace, and by His grace alone. But those there DID respond, hopefully (a disjunct) with alacrity and continued response. We do seem to have an 'unforgivable sin' in Matthew 12 (unless of course believers are not believers without the Holy Spirit, assuming that everyone receives 'automatically'), but this can't be too easy to do, or none of us will qualify for 'election.' This is why, from a layman's point of view, I cannot accept 'once-saved-always-saved.' Surely, from God's divine viewpoint this may be true, but to us here, now, it is ludicrous. It is only to easy to say, "Right. Like Jim Jones." Our 'righteousness' of looking at things from God's eyes (impossible, anyway) alienates us from the down-to earth reality that most people perceive. Of course, I do not promote becoming an 'air-head' or 'loose-minded, loose-moraled(sorry)' emotional nitwit. (i.e. "Of course, a truly nice god would save EVERYBODY!") I do believe there is a balance. In my Bible, and in my heart (through the Spirit), I believe I am 'called.' Not only called to a specific ministry within His church, but generally called to be His. Thank You, Jesus. I know that I am stating both cases, indeed, this is my intent. I see, very clearly, pertinent arguments from both camps. Is it possible that both are valid, with a bit of moderation and the revelation of the Holy Spirit? I believe so! I would not want to 'wake up' in the Holy Presence, and find that one group or another was 'missing.' Please understand that I do not mean the same for all fringe aberrations of faith. Some will be shown to be just plain wrong. But, in this case, and perhaps several others, adjustment is necessary, not a total revamp. "...Let God is true, and all men liars..." Romans 3:4 May the peace AND truth be upon us all, in Christ Jesus. |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Dear Jg8ball, Please see 'Guffaw' below. God bless us, everybody. (Tiny Tim:-) In Christ Jesus. |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Sorry, I misspelled your 'name,' jg8ball. |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Sorry, jg8ball, not only did I misspell your 'name,' but I also sent the apology to the wrong place. Must be bad software, huh? (Oh, the shame! ;-) In Jesus. |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Thank you! I agree with everything you said. My concern is with people that believe that God pre-chose certain people to be saved. In other words, they believe that there are certain people that are unable to be saved. This is what an elder at the church I attend is telling me. He calls himself Calvinistic and believes firmly in the Doctrine of Election.
There are just too many verses that talk otherwise.
I also get frustrated when people say things like "since there are 255 times the elect, election, chose, chosen and choose appear then that proves the doctrine. What they fail to do is look up the words, read them in context, and see that they (or at least the majority of them) have nothing to do with Election.
What I'm starting to see though is that there appears to be different levels of belief in Election. Those that believe ALL can be saved and those that believe SOME can be saved. I believe ALL can be saved - through FAITH ALONE. I'm not sure why JVH0212 keeps implying that I believe it's also by works.
God offered me salvation through Jesus and I elected to accept it.
|
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Talk about close minded persons. Yes, verse 1 (and this chapter) talks about false teachers. But, I didn't ask about verse 1, I asked about Verse 20. Since you seem not to want to read that far, I'll break it down in easy to understand terminology for you.
2 Peter 2:20
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..."
How does one escape the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord? It doesn't matter who you are. If you escape it, then you are saved. PERIOD. (unless of course you believe there is some sort of "in between" state.)
"...and are again entangled in it and overcome"
"And again entangled" implies that the person has reverted back to the old sinfull ways
"...and overcome..." would imply that the person has lost Jesus.
"...they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning."
This proves that they are no longer saved because if so, then how could they be worse in the end?
Basically, it's telling you that you'd be better off having not been saved at all. Because those that are saved and renounce that salvation to turn back to the ways of the world and spread lies will not be in a good mood at judgement day.
By the way, did you get a chance to look up those 250 times the words appear in the bible? Do you still want to use that number? I'm not sure why your eyes have been closed but I pray that someone will be able to open them.
|
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Verse 20 is part of the verses that make up chapter 2. In v. 20, the word "they" is a pronoun. Every pronoun must have an antecedent (a noun to which it refers). To find the antecedent, you have to keep reading what comes before the antecedent until you find the noun. In this case, the antecedent of "they" (v. 20) is "false teachers" (v. 1).
. . . If this answer is too complex, remedial reading classes for adults are offered at many public schools and colleges. Or you may want to read chapter 2 in one of those new versions intended for the illiterate and the subliterate.
. . . If you use an exhaustive concordance for the NIV, you too will come up with 250 occurences of the words elect, election, choose, chose, and chosen. You will also find the word "freewill" occurs a total of 22 times in the Bible. Stop riding me about the number of times the above words appear in the Bible. It's a simple matter of statistics, not interpretation.
. . . Thank you for getting through one entire question of yours without mentioning the word Calvinism or Calvinist.
|
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
I'm not denying that it's talking about false teachers. I'm saying that verse 20 is saying very clearly that it's possible to lose one's salvation. Couldn't it be that the people that were saved and given up the salvation are the false teachers mentioned above. Who would be a better false teacher? One that knew nothing of the Bible or one that knew about it, new the love of Jesus, but later rejected it for the pleasures of the world and began twisting the doctrines with little half-truths to sway people away? PLEASE READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER (or better yet, the whole bible) Don't throw out verses because they don't fit with what you want to believe!!!
And as I've repeatedly said, I don't deny the number if instances the words appear. I deny your use of the words to make your point. Take each of those words in context and most have nothing to do with the doctrine of election. And again, the word Trinity does not occur in the bible at all. Does this mean it doesn't exist? NO!!
When you respond to a posting, please take your time and read it and try to understand, answer, and address all that was written.
|
| |
...by His grace, right? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
...by His grace, right? jg8ball, I couldn't help adding this to the end of your note. It IS true, even if it is not Election with a capital 'E' (...which rhymes with 'P' which means 'Pool!' Sorry, we were watching "The Music Man" the other day :-) In any case, I fully expect to see jg8ball and JVH0212 together as brethren someday in His glorious eternity. That's my point. I cannot discard wholesale either opinion or bent, and I cannot endorse in the Lord any capital 'X' doctrine. How then should we live? Excommunicating one another is an option, but I don't think it is Godly. Discussion, prayer, humility, repentance toward God, and fellowship of the saints is the option I choose. With love in Christ Jesus. |
| |
...by His grace, right? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Who's other grace is there? Thanks. |
| |
What humans compiled The Bible |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
What group of earthly individuals is responsible for
collecting Biblical literature and selecting which works
would be included in what we now call The Holy
Bible and which works would not be included?
Please note that I am not asking why some works
should or should not be included. I think that
question has previously been dealt with in this forum. |
| |
What humans compiled The Bible |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
The humans were "holy men of God...moved by the Holy Ghost."
The Old Testament talks about Scriptures placed by Moses in the Ark of the Covenant, Samuel at
Mizpeh, David in the Temple, Ezra's library and we know of the collection of Judas Maccabaeus. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the O.T. was done in 285 BC. Within the first century, the The early church fathers--Iraneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria-- referred to the New Testament Scriptures in their writings. Over 5000 copies were made by the early church copyists of the NT are in existence.
|
| |
What humans compiled The Bible |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
There are some good links for studying the writings of early believers...
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html
Enjoy!
--Nolan |
| |
what is up with eternity |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Eternity
What exactly is time? Think about it for a minute.
Time is made up of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and eons. I believe that time is a man made concept.
Within a single second many things change. You could walk a little further, the rust on a car gets a little bit worse, and a jet travels so many yards. My point is that you cannot have time without at the same time having change. Thus time cannot without change.
In the bible it says (2nd peter 3:8) that a day to us is 1,000 years to God and 1,000 years to us is a day to God. To me this means that God is not limited by time at all, nor is He by time in any way and God simply IS, always.
Because time is a man-made concept, after we pass on to eternity, that concept will be no more, thus there will be no such thing as time.
Thus we can bring two concepts together. After this life we will be with God for all eternity. In eternity nothing changes, thus time does not exist.
This is eternity. No change. No Time.
|
| |
what is up with eternity |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Partial agreement.......................
Greetings!
God is eternal and timeless. Absolutely.
I disagree with your statement that time is a manmade concept. It was God who established the cycle of "day" and "week" in Gen 1. It's true we benefit from these cycles, and God uses them to help us in reference to Himself.
Steve |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
How did Peter die? |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
I believe there is still significant disputes over exactly how Peter died. I've read some accounts where he was imprisoned and died a slow death and others where he was burned to death. I also came across this, according to "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul", by Thomas Lewin (Vol. 2, London. 1874. P. 368):
"Peter, on the other hand, suffered and died as the result of CRUCIFIXION:
Shortly after the dispatch of the second epistle [II Timothy] Peter arrived at Rome, and, according to the general tradition was CRUCIFIED there in the Vatican, the scene of the other [earlier] martyrdoms, with his head downwards."
|
| |
what is up with eternity |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
But it was man who delineated the days (and weeks) into periods of seconds, minutes and hours, and further man created the calendar(s). Therefore it is man that "marks" time, while God is, as you correctly noted, the creator (establisher) of the cycles.
|
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
One very important think to understand is that the apostle were preparing their souls to get heavenly bodies. Indestructible bodies. They already had preach the gospel to all the continents. They were not going to die and leave their bodies to get material bodies from Rome, they preach the gospel in all types of bodies. They knew what awaited them. But they also knew they would go to heaven to be with Christ. And would return at the end of time and live with him in his Kingdom. So the spirit of the Apostle are in heaven with Christ. They lived many many years among us. And one day will return to earth. |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
The upside-down crucifixion is what tradition holds.
--Joe! |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
What does any of this have to do with how Peter died?!?
Preach the gospel in "all types of bodies"? Where do you go to church?
--Joe! |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Yes Joe,
That is what was meant by "head down". No arguement from me. |
| |
How did Peter die? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Q: "Preach the gospel in 'all types of bodies'? Where do you go to church? "
A: In the Twilight Zone?
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
