Looking at 2 Pet 2:1

TestedandTried

New member
II Corinthians 5:18-19:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Jesus died for the sins of all mankind as you see above...some do not avail themselves of the Gospel and so miss out on salvation...are damned. So both facts are true...only the elect are saved, but Jesus died for all.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
II Corinthians 5:18-19:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Jesus died for the sins of all mankind as you see above...some do not avail themselves of the Gospel and so miss out on salvation...are damned. So both facts are true...only the elect are saved, but Jesus died for all.

False doctrine !
 

MennoSota

New member
You have misunderstood what Paul is saying. Here is the New Living Translation, which may help you.
II Corinthians 5:18-19:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Jesus died for the sins of all mankind as you see above...some do not avail themselves of the Gospel and so miss out on salvation...are damned. So both facts are true...only the elect are saved, but Jesus died for all.
18 And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him.19 For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation.

First, note that the "gift" is found in vs 17, which is transformation into a new person. God does it all and then gives us (the elect) the task of reconciliation.
When Christ reconciled the world, it was not "all" the world. If it was, there would be no task for us to do. The world being reconciled is the elect from every tribe, tongue and nation.
God does not hold the sins of the elect against them because the payment for their sins has been met by Jesus atoning sacrifice.
The message of reconciliation is wonderful to those whom God has chosen to save. It is foolishness to those who are dead in their trespasses and sins.
 

TestedandTried

New member
One cannot ignore vs 19:
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. The world has the opportunity, that is all mankind has the opportunity to be saved...Christ died for them...
John 3:13-16:
3 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
 

7djengo7

New member
Jengo, I answered you. Once again it seems you are incapable of understanding. Perhaps English is your second language?

My question was "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"
Your answer to it was that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or elect. I already acknowledged, in my most recent post, that you answered it.

You didn't read my recent post, obviously, or you would not have reacted to it the way you just have, since you would have seen that I acknowledged that you finally answered a question I asked you. I specifically said, in that post, #39, "Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered." But, you can't even read my screen name, evidently, so why should I expect you to be able to read a whole sentence, let alone a whole post?

Anyway, that's your answer: that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect, or elect. It, of course, is a lousy answer, inasmuch as you already admitted that you consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

Observe what you are saying:

'Greg Boyd is a false teacher, but I do not know whether he is non-elect or elect.'

You are saying that Greg Boyd might be non-elect, but that, on the other hand, he might be elect. And so, you are saying that some false teachers may be elect. So, it is necessarily the case that you are dividing the class of all false teachers into two sub-classes:

1. False teachers who are elect,
2. False teachers who are non-elect.

See, if you could bring yourself to affirm, instead, that ALL false teachers are non-elect, then you wouldn't have any trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is non-elect, since you already have no trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is a false teacher. But, since you are saying that some false teachers are elect, the only option you leave yourself is to respond to my question--"Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"--in as cautious and politic a way as you think you can, which is to say to me, "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"

So, it is because you think that some false prophets are elect that you refuse to come out and declare that Greg Boyd (whom you consider to be a false prophet) is non-elect.

And so, what's really interesting about all this--all you've given me (whether or not you even realized just how much you were actually giving away, inadvertently)--is how it reflects on your Calvinist way of dealing with 2 Peter 2. See, since you obviously think that some false prophets are elect, it leaves you with no basis, whatsoever, upon which to claim, as you do, that the false prophets spoken of in 2 Peter 2 MUST be non-elect.

Do you now wish to change your mind, and deny, rather than affirm, that some false prophets are elect? That is, do you now wish to affirm, instead, that ALL false prophets are non-elect, and that NO false prophets are elect? If so, then nothing bars you from coming out, forthrightly, and declaring, "Yes, Greg Boyd is non-elect, since he is a false teacher." Your fake piety ploy--"Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"--is utterly worthless, since you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, and that ALL false teachers are elect.
 

MennoSota

New member
My question was "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"
Your answer to it was that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or elect. I already acknowledged, in my most recent post, that you answered it.

You didn't read my recent post, obviously, or you would not have reacted to it the way you just have, since you would have seen that I acknowledged that you finally answered a question I asked you. I specifically said, in that post, #39, "Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered." But, you can't even read my screen name, evidently, so why should I expect you to be able to read a whole sentence, let alone a whole post?

Anyway, that's your answer: that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect, or elect. It, of course, is a lousy answer, inasmuch as you already admitted that you consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

Observe what you are saying:

'Greg Boyd is a false teacher, but I do not know whether he is non-elect or elect.'

You are saying that Greg Boyd might be non-elect, but that, on the other hand, he might be elect. And so, you are saying that some false teachers may be elect. So, it is necessarily the case that you are dividing the class of all false teachers into two sub-classes:

1. False teachers who are elect,
2. False teachers who are non-elect.

See, if you could bring yourself to affirm, instead, that ALL false teachers are non-elect, then you wouldn't have any trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is non-elect, since you already have no trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is a false teacher. But, since you are saying that some false teachers are elect, the only option you leave yourself is to respond to my question--"Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"--in as cautious and politic a way as you think you can, which is to say to me, "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"

So, it is because you think that some false prophets are elect that you refuse to come out and declare that Greg Boyd (whom you consider to be a false prophet) is non-elect.

And so, what's really interesting about all this--all you've given me (whether or not you even realized just how much you were actually giving away, inadvertently)--is how it reflects on your Calvinist way of dealing with 2 Peter 2. See, since you obviously think that some false prophets are elect, it leaves you with no basis, whatsoever, upon which to claim, as you do, that the false prophets spoken of in 2 Peter 2 MUST be non-elect.

Do you now wish to change your mind, and deny, rather than affirm, that some false prophets are elect? That is, do you now wish to affirm, instead, that ALL false prophets are non-elect, and that NO false prophets are elect? If so, then nothing bars you from coming out, forthrightly, and declaring, "Yes, Greg Boyd is non-elect, since he is a false teacher." Your fake piety ploy--"Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"--is utterly worthless, since you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, and that ALL false teachers are elect.
Do you own a pretzel maker? You have done an amazing job with this one.
Do you imagine all of the elect speak infallible words of God when they teach? Do you imagine the elect never disagree?
 

7djengo7

New member
Do you own a pretzel maker? You have done an amazing job with this one.
Do you imagine all of the elect speak infallible words of God when they teach? Do you imagine the elect never disagree?

Here's a fun little syllogism for you:

Maj. Prem.: ALL false teachers are non-elect,
Min. Prem.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
Ergo,
Conclusion: Greg Boyd is non-elect.

You affirm the major premise, no?
You affirm the minor premise, no?

So, when you respond to the question, "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?", by saying "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?", it's here, plain for all to see, your lying foolishness, and your antipathy to logic--your hatred for GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE from premises accepted as true. If you can accept that both the major and the minor premises of this syllogism are true, then you have no excuse, whatsoever, to stonewall against affirming the conclusion of this syllogism, viz., that Greg Boyd is non-elect. For, if both premises are true, this conclusion MUST be true.

If you deny one, or both, of the premises, then say which one(s) you deny, and say why you deny it/them.

Do you wish to deny the major, that ALL false teachers are non-elect? For you to deny that is for you to affirm that SOME false teachers are elect.

Do you wish to deny the minor, that Greg Boyd is a false teacher? Bear in mind that you have already affirmed that Greg Boyd is a teacher of open theism and Pelagianism. You have already affirmed that Greg Boyd opposes, denies, teaches against Calvinism, which you hold to be truth, and the very gospel, itself.


Stop being a lying, intellectual coward; out with it, now:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

In your very next post that is a direct reply to this post, you are to submit nothing other than the word 'Yes', if your answer to this question is 'Yes', and submit nothing other than the word 'No', if your answer to this question is 'No'. Failing to do so, you will not have answered the question, and you will still be a lying, intellectual coward.

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

Enjoy the syllogism!

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?
 

MennoSota

New member
Here's a fun little syllogism for you:

Maj. Prem.: ALL false teachers are non-elect,
Min. Prem.: Greg Boyd is a false teacher,
Ergo,
Conclusion: Greg Boyd is non-elect.

You affirm the major premise, no?
You affirm the minor premise, no?

So, when you respond to the question, "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?", by saying "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?", it's here, plain for all to see, your lying foolishness, and your antipathy to logic--your hatred for GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE from premises accepted as true. If you can accept that both the major and the minor premises of this syllogism are true, then you have no excuse, whatsoever, to stonewall against affirming the conclusion of this syllogism, viz., that Greg Boyd is non-elect. For, if both premises are true, this conclusion MUST be true.

If you deny one, or both, of the premises, then say which one(s) you deny, and say why you deny it/them.

Do you wish to deny the major, that ALL false teachers are non-elect? For you to deny that is for you to affirm that SOME false teachers are elect.

Do you wish to deny the minor, that Greg Boyd is a false teacher? Bear in mind that you have already affirmed that Greg Boyd is a teacher of open theism and Pelagianism. You have already affirmed that Greg Boyd opposes, denies, teaches against Calvinism, which you hold to be truth, and the very gospel, itself.


Stop being a lying, intellectual coward; out with it, now:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

In your very next post that is a direct reply to this post, you are to submit nothing other than the word 'Yes', if your answer to this question is 'Yes', and submit nothing other than the word 'No', if your answer to this question is 'No'. Failing to do so, you will not have answered the question, and you will still be a lying, intellectual coward.

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

Enjoy the syllogism!

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?
Am I obligated to play your little game? Shall we call it, Pretzel Making or Twirl the Spaghetti?
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Could you expound maybe and using Scripture to back up your doctrine?

I have already, I have maybe a dozen or more threads on this forum to back up my beliefs, so if you are truly interested look them up and read them and we can discuss what you read from them.
 

7djengo7

New member
Am I obligated to play your little game? Shall we call it, Pretzel Making or Twirl the Spaghetti?

Have you ever heard of syllogisms? Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning? Of course you have, you liar.

So, given that you believe that ALL false teachers are non-elect, and given that you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, you show yourself to be a bald-faced liar, and coward, when you refuse to say to me "Greg Boyd is non-elect."

Your refusal to deal plainly with me, and your refusal to own the necessary consequence of two premises that you believe, flow from the fact that you love your irrationality so much--your Calvinism--that you are willing to lie to me, and to others, on behalf of it.

If it's true that ALL false teachers are non-elect (which you, indeed, believe is true), and that Greg Boyd is a false teacher (which you, indeed, believe is true), then as a necessary consequence of those two things being true, it MUST be true that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, say it, coward: "Greg Boyd is non-elect!"

Why do you hate logic?
 

MennoSota

New member
Have you ever heard of syllogisms? Have you ever heard of deductive reasoning? Of course you have, you liar.

So, given that you believe that ALL false teachers are non-elect, and given that you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, you show yourself to be a bald-faced liar, and coward, when you refuse to say to me "Greg Boyd is non-elect."

Your refusal to deal plainly with me, and your refusal to own the necessary consequence of two premises that you believe, flow from the fact that you love your irrationality so much--your Calvinism--that you are willing to lie to me, and to others, on behalf of it.

If it's true that ALL false teachers are non-elect (which you, indeed, believe is true), and that Greg Boyd is a false teacher (which you, indeed, believe is true), then as a necessary consequence of those two things being true, it MUST be true that Greg Boyd is non-elect. So, say it, coward: "Greg Boyd is non-elect!"

Why do you hate logic?
Why do you hate the Bible? God gives you the answers. Start looking.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Im going to present a couple of studies that I have read and have to the conclusion that 2 Pet 2:1 isnt speaking of the Blood Redemption of Christ at all. Heres the following study from https://www.godsonlygospel.com/for-god-so-lovedwho-part-21:

2 Peter 2:1 is still another verse of Scripture used by lost men, to whom the Gospel of God is hidden, in an attempt to defend the Biblically indefensible lie that Christ died for everyone without exception. “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.” “It is unclear exactly what Peter means when he says the false teachers were ‘bought’. It is true that 1 Corinthians 6:20 and other verses such as 1 Corinthians 7:23 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…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 ‘escaped the pollutions of the world’ by the knowledge of the Gospel (see 2 Pet. 2:20). 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.
To be continued !
 

beloved57

Well-known member
"There is also another possibility…It is quite likely that Peter is referring to the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt in 2 Peter 2:1, for Peter compares the false prophets that would arise in the church to the false prophets that arose in Israel: ‘…there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall 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 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?’ 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: ‘Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till Thy people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over, which 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 among believers 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 Christ’s atonement only for the people whom the Father had given unto Him. In fact, in light of the clear teaching elsewhere in Scripture that Christ’s exclusive atonement for the people God had chosen before the foundation of the world is true, it would be best to interpret this ambiguous passage in light of those https://www.godsonlygospel.com/for-god-so-lovedwho-part-21
 
Top