• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

1Timothy 2:4 by CH Spurgeon

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by DD2008, Aug 9, 2010.

  1. mlqurgw

    mlqurgw Well-Known Member

    +531
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Though I believe you are in error I also believe, from reading your posts and from discussions with you, that you know God. I was only showing why I take these things seriously. I don't get into soteriological debates either. I try to not get into any debates anymore. I just want to declare Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures in all His glory unto the salvation of souls.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2010
  2. DD2008

    DD2008 Well-Known Member

    +513
    Baptist
    Married
    Well, I fall in between 4 and 5!

    :p

    Are you sure you don't fall in between 1 and 2? According to this chart you are way more calvinist than calvin.
     
  3. DD2008

    DD2008 Well-Known Member

    +513
    Baptist
    Married
    Well, for someone not wanting to debate you sure have posted a lot ;)

    I'm not calling you anything you yourself haven't called yourself at one point or another.

    I'm not grasping at straws at all. I haven't even begun really. I'm simply saying that we should take scripture for what it says. We can't contradict a definitive statement about God. I have never even moved beyond that point so far in this issue, no need to. The buck stops there. God's words are superior to man's ideas.
     
  4. mlqurgw

    mlqurgw Well-Known Member

    +531
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I probably am more Calvinist than Calvin. But I make no aplologies for it. :)
     
  5. Hentenza

    Hentenza I will fear no evil for You are with me Supporter

    +3,225
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Likewise.



    We agree.
     
  6. faceofbear

    faceofbear Veteran

    +95
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    In regards to 2 Peter 2:1, if anyone was wondering:
    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.
    -John Piper
     
  7. faceofbear

    faceofbear Veteran

    +95
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    C.H. Spurgeon:
    Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, “It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,” they say, “to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.” I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.
    Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.

    That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

    There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

    The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one “of whom the world was not worthy.” I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.​
    Source: Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield – David Westerfield > Weblog
     
  8. Hupomone10

    Hupomone10 Veteran

    +131
    Baptist
    Married
    I know this is going a long time back, but I just went through this thread yesterday, and had some further thoughts and scriptures to add regarding this, and these are other verses where the comma would or would not apply:

    Gal 3:24
    Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

    Gal 3:25
    For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    Rom 3:28
    For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

    Gal 2:16
    nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

    A. 2 things on Gal 2:16:
    1) we are justified by faith in Christ.
    2) faith in Christ is not a work, it is contrasted with works.

    B. Placing the comma after justified makes peace with God to be by faith; and this doesn’t resolve the problem, but just pushes it off to another discussion.

    Peace, it can likewise be said, is in Christ and therefore by the work of Christ:

    Eph 2:14
    For He Himself is our peace,

    Eph 2: 15
    by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,”

    Col 1:20
    and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

    Here we see that peace is accomplished by the work of Christ, not through faith.

    What I am saying is this: this is a perfect example to see how peace is accomplished through the work of the cross, and becomes ours through faith. Likewise, justification is accomplished through the work of the cross, and becomes ours through faith. This is not complicated, and we don’t need to readjust the commas to support a theological position we hold. It usually only makes us inconsistent somewhere else.
     
Loading...