Tough Texts for Calvinists

[Steve Owen]

2 Peter 3:16. ‘……Some things hard to understand…….’

On another thread, @DNB wrote that there were certain texts which appear to contradict the teaching of Definite Atonement. I thought it might be good to look at some of these, so I am going to give two such texts and then open the discussion out for others.

The first text is 1 John 2:2.

1 John 2:2 (NIV). ‘He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.’

1 John 2:2 (AV). ‘And he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.’

1 John 2:2 (NKJV). ‘And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world.’

The argument of those who uphold a General Redemption is that since the Lord Jesus has died for the sins of ‘the whole world,’ He cannot have died for the Elect alone. They assume that the Greek word kosmos, which has the basic meaning of ‘the created order,’ must mean here ‘all the people in the world.’ There is no firm evidence for that; kosmos has a variety of meanings in the New Testament. But whatever it means here, it cannot mean ‘all the people in the world,’ since the Bible teaches very clearly that God is actually not propitiated towards everyone in the world without exception. ‘He who believes is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God’ (John 3:18). So God is not propitious towards unbelievers. Is it possible that our Lord Jesus would make a propitiation that would fail? One that would not propitiate the Father? Surely not! ‘For I always do the things that please Him’ (John 8:29).

So who or what is this kosmos for whom Christ has made propitiation? There are two possible answers. The first is to look at the uses of ‘world’ and ‘all’ in the New Testament. A. W. Pink has shown {1} that there are up to eight different uses of kosmos and only rarely does it mean ‘all the people in the world.’
He writes:

“The word “kosmos,” and its English equivalent “world,” is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. Below we will refer to a few passages where this term occurs, suggesting a tentative definition in each case:

“Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 – “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” is used of the Universe as a whole:

“Kosmos” is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., etc.- “When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end.” “Depart out of this world” signifies, leave this earth. “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc.

“Kosmos” is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out”— compare Matthew 4:8 and I John 5:19, R. V.

“Kosmos” is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3: 19, etc.—”Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

“Kosmos” is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.” Believers do not “hate” Christ, so that “the world” here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean “you, me, and everybody,” for believers will not be “judged” by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

“Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12 etc. “Now if the fall of them [Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them [Israel] the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their [Israel’s] fulness.” Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

“Kosmos” is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of “the world” in each place.”

I would personally go further and say that this last category of ‘believers’ speaks specifically of ‘people of every race and language’ and this is clearly the meaning in 1 John 2:2. The Lord Jesus is not the propitiation for the sins of every person in the world, but He is the propitiation for the sins of people from all over the world. ‘After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb”’ (Rev. 7:9-10). This is the world for whom Christ made propitiation, and notice that they ascribe salvation to God who has decreed salvation for them (Eph.1:3-5), and to the Lamb who has redeemed them, not to themselves for believing, for ‘it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy’ (Rom. 9:16).

But I believe that there is another, possibly better, explanation of 1 John 2:2. The words ‘the sins of….’ Do not appear in any Greek or Latin manuscript; they have been supplied by most of the English translators (wrongly, in my view) to help the sense. The N.I.V. and the E.S.V. add them without any indication that they are not in the original. The A.V. and N.A.S.B. put the words in italics to show that they have been added, but only the N.K.J.V. omits them altogether. What the Apostle is saying is that on the cross, the Lord Jesus did not only make propitiation for our sins, but He also made propitiation for the world- Planet Earth.

In Genesis 3, after the Fall of Adam and Eve, we learn that because of their sin, a curse had come upon the earth (v.17). Weeds choke the crops; disease and blight kill them; the work is hard, the rewards often small and over it all there is the spectre of old age and death. This is not how God’s creation was when He finished it and pronounced it ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). This curse is mentioned again in Gen. 5:29. In Romans 8:18ff, we see that the curse is extended into the New Testament, but now there is a blessed new dimension. ‘For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope’ (v.20). It is God’s righteous judgement that sinful men and women shall not live in a perfect world, but in His mercy He has given His beloved Son not only to pay the penalty for the sins of His elect people (Eph. 1:4), but also to take away the curse on the earth. ‘Because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (v.21).

When you go into a hospital labour ward, you hear cries of dreadful pain and see medical staff running to and fro; you might think that someone was dying. But quite the reverse is true; someone is giving birth and a new life is appearing. So it is with the world: ‘For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs together until now’ (v.22). The earthquakes, typhoons and famines that we see are not the signs of a dying world, but a new one coming to birth! The blood of the Saviour that purchased Christians from death and hell also paid the price to take away the curse of the world. ‘And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads’ (Rev. 22:3-4). What 1 John 2:2 is saying is something amazingly wonderful! That Christ’s death has not only secured for us eternal life, but a new heavens and a new earth for us to spend it in (2 Peter 3:13)!

Note

{1} A.W. Pink: The Meaning of “Kosmos” in John 3:16.

 

[Steve Owen]

Here is the second text:
2 Peter 2:1, NKJV. ‘But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift judgement.’

This text is certainly a difficult text for those who support the Doctrines of Grace. At first glance, it seems to be saying that people bought by the Lord Jesus Christ may depart from the faith and deny His name, striking at the very heart of the doctrines of Particular Redemption and the Perseverance of the Saints. The commentaries (at least the ones I have read) do not give a great deal of help. They suggest that these teachers merely ‘claim’ to have been bought by Christ and point to verse 22: ‘A dog returns to its vomit….etc’ which indicates that these people were not regenerate. But this does not satisfy the supporters of ‘General Redemption’ who see this verse as a proof text that Christ died for all men, but that only those who believe are saved.

So how shall we answer this? The first part of the answer is to look at the word despotes, translated as ‘Lord’ in the NKJV and as ‘Master’ in other versions. Despotes is mostly used to describe human masters; the English word 'despot' comes from it. On the few occasions where it is used of God, it usually speaks of the Father, not the Son. The regular word for ‘Lord,’ when used of the Deity, is Kurios, which has divine overtones, being the word used by the writers of the Greek ‘Septuagint’ translation to render the Divine name, ‘Yahweh.’ The only other place in the N.T. where despotes might refer to Christ is Jude 4, but even here it seems to speak of God the Father. It is also important to observe that whatever this ‘buying’ entailed, there is no mention of the blood of the Lord Jesus as there is in 1 Peter 1:18 or Rev. 5:9.

So if despotes does indeed refer to God the Father, in what way did he ‘buy’ believers? We should first be aware that the verse is looking back to the O.T. period: ‘But there were false prophets among the people…..’ The Israelites were regarded as having been bought or redeemed out of Egypt by God. ‘Until the people pass over, O LORD, until the people pass over whom You have purchased’ (Exod. 15:16). ‘Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not te Father who bought you?’ (Deut. 32:6). God purchased the Israelites with His great power which He exhibited when He brought the plagues upon Egypt. But although all were ‘bought’ in that they all came out of Israel, very few of them ever reached the Promised Land (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-5).

It is here that we find the great difference between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant was made with all the Israelites and was conditional; only a small number of those were saved (Exod. 33:19; Isaiah 1:9). The New Covenant by contrast, was made with believers of every language and nation. These are Christ’s sheep and are bought with the blood of the Good Shepherd. They will come to Him and they shall never perish (John 10:27-28). The Old Covenant was conditional; the New is unconditional (compare Exod. 19;5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10).

This contrast is made especially clear in the famous ‘New Covenant’ prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31, repeated by the writer to the Hebrews:

‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the ccovenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put their laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I shall be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb. 8:8-12).

So we can clearly see that the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:1 were not Christians, since their ‘swift destruction’ proves that they were not in the New Covenant. Their allegiance to Christ was shown to be fleeting and insincere; they were never His sheep, and one day they would hear the dread words of the One they had professed to know but actually scorned, saying, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness’ (Matt. 7:23).

 

[DNB]

2 Peter 3:16. ‘……Some things hard to understand…….’

On another thread, @DNB wrote that there were certain texts which appear to contradict the teaching of Definite Atonement. I thought it might be good to look at some of these, so I am going to give two such texts and then open the discussion out for others.

The first text is 1 John 2:2.

1 John 2:2 (NIV). ‘He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.’

1 John 2:2 (AV). ‘And he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.’

1 John 2:2 (NKJV). ‘And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world.’

So who or what is this kosmos for whom Christ has made propitiation? There are two possible answers. The first is to look at the uses of ‘world’ and ‘all’ in the New Testament. A. W. Pink has shown {1} that there are up to eight different uses of kosmos and only rarely does it mean ‘all the people in the world.’
He writes:

“The word “kosmos,” and its English equivalent “world,” is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. Below we will refer to a few passages where this term occurs, suggesting a tentative definition in each case:

“Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 – “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 – “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.”

“Ko9, R. V.

“Kosmos” is useon the throne, and to the Lamb”’ (Revecause of their sin, a curse had come upon the earth (v.17). Weeds choke the crops; disease and blight kill them; the work is hard, the rewards often small and over it all there is the spectre of old age and death. This is not how God’s creation was when He finished it and pronounced it ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). This curse is mentioned again in Gen. 5:29. In Romans 8:18ff, ly secured for us eternal life, but a new heavens and a new earth for us to spend it in (2 Peter 3:13)!

Note

{1} A.W. Pink: The Meaning of “Kosmos” in John 3:16.

Hi Steve, hermenuetic rule #1, when one is required to do an in-depth analysis of a single word, in order to qualify their interpretation of the text, they entirely miscomprehended the overall principle being conveyed. The Bible never imparts a doctrine in such an isolated manner, that it comes down to referring to the etymology of a word, or all its derivatives, in order to rightly divide God's Word. In other words, the principle will be found in several areas of the Bible, written in various manners. One word does not define a doctrine, ever. And the first sign of bad exegesis, is the attempt to establish a doctrine based on the meaning of a word. Doctrines are established by the wisdom of God, when one can understand the reasons why God has ordained a principle, then one should be able to speak on a fundamental level of the soundness and wisdom of the principle. And not be required to break down a verse, word by word.

Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to abrogate the Law, which was the sole purpose of his death. Once the Law ended, condemnation for all men ceased, as where there is no Law, there is no sin. But now, God has implemented a new Law that binds all men to its adherence, the Law of Faith. God showed favouratism in the Old Covenant, for the sake of favouratism, in order that He may eventually show mercy to all men. We were once in an exclusive Covenant, but now it is inclusive. The principle of the Elect, defies this mandate.

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Steve, hermenuetic rule #1, when one is required to do an in-depth analysis of a single word, in order to qualify their interpretation of the text, they entirely miscomprehended the overall principle being conveyed.

This sentence makes no sense as you have written it. Perhaps you would like to amend it?

The Bible never imparts a doctrine in such an isolated manner, that it comes down to referring to the etymology of a word, or all its derivatives, in order to rightly divide God's Word. In other words, the principle will be found in several areas of the Bible, written in various manners. One word does not define a doctrine, ever.

I fully agree with this. The rule for successful interpretation of a passage is to compare Scripture with Scripture. I think you will find, if you read my two posts through again, that I have done this to some extent. But I was not writing a book! I find that on discussion forums such as this, people don't read long posts. I am hoping to draw out better understanding of the texts through discussion.

And the first sign of bad exegesis, is the attempt to establish a doctrine based on the meaning of a word.

This is true to some degree, but sometimes people misunderstand the meaning of a word and it has to dealt with. This is the situation in my post #2. If one does not know the differences in meaning between despotes and kurios, one is never going to understand the meaning of 2 Peter 2:1.

Doctrines are established by the wisdom of God, when one can understand the reasons why God has ordained a principle, then one should be able to speak on a fundamental level of the soundness and wisdom of the principle. And not be required to break down a verse, word by word.

And this, with respect, is airy-fairy nonsense. If you next sentence is supposed to be an example of this, it doesn't work.

Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to abrogate the Law, which was the sole purpose of his death. Once the Law ended, condemnation for all men ceased, as where there is no Law, there is no sin. But now, God has implemented a new Law that binds all men to its adherence, the Law of Faith. God showed favouritism in the Old Covenant, for the sake of favouritism, in order that He may eventually show mercy to all men. We were once in an exclusive Covenant, but now it is inclusive. The principle of the Elect, defies this mandate.

One thing that the propitiation of the Lord Jesus did not do, is abrogate the moral law. In Isaiah 42:21, having spoken of Christ in verses 1-4, we read, The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law and make it honourable. And Paul says the same thing in Romans 3:31. 'Do we then make void the law through faith [in Christ crucified]? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.' What our Lord did on the cross was to redeem His people from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13).

 

[DNB]

This sentence makes no sense as you have written it. Perhaps you would like to amend it?

I was just making the same point as my next two sentences, that is, context should primarily establish the meaning of the text, not isolating each word. And, of course, as you said and agree with, previous established principles, i.e. Scripture should corroborate with Scripture. Thus, context on many levels.

If one does not know the differences in meaning between despotes and kurios, one is never going to understand the meaning of 2 Peter 2:1.

This is where I differ, the context is quite clear, and the meaning is clear, that I feel that it makes no difference who bought our redemption for the sake of Paul's point. Theses charlatans are so audacious and defiant, that they even show contempt for the extremely precious gift that they were given. Who offered or purchased the gift is incidental in this context, for either position doesn't detract from the main point. Not to mention, both Jesus & God can be ascribed that title, as it works in one way or another, for either one.

Doctrines are established by the wisdom of God, when one can understand the reasons why God has ordained a principle, then one should be able to speak on a fundamental level of the soundness and wisdom of the principle. And not be required to break down a verse, word by word.

This Steve, is the quintessence of Biblical interpretation. Once your doctrine brings glory to God and his wisdom, and it is understandable and compelling to all those around you, then you've completely comprehended the text. One's conclusion should abide by fundamental principles, justice, righteousness, soundness and common sense, ...

One thing that the propitiation of the Lord Jesus did not do, is abrogate the moral law.

The Levitical Law was abrogated, not the moral Law. The Mosaic Laws was a covenant that could not either fall by the wayside, or not be fulfilled. Once it was fulfilled, it could be ended. Both Christ's perfection and blood, did just that.

Acts 15:10-11
15:10. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11. "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Galatians 5:1-6
5:1. It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Hebrews 8:6-13
8:6. But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
...
13. When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

What our Lord did on the cross was to redeem His people from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13).

The Law by nature and design is a curse. How can you separate the two? Where there is Law, there is condemnation, and that which is prohibited arouses the flesh to sin. Both the Law itself, and the curse were rescinded.

 

[Enoch111]

...the Bible teaches very clearly that God is actually not propitiated towards everyone in the world without exception...

We need to take this Scripture into account in this connection:

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world* unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:19)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
*STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος (kosmos)
[Thayer provides the various meanings of kosmos in different contexts, but Calvinists choose to ignore what he applied to the above verse, that the world here means "the human race".]

5. the inhabitants of the world:
θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷκόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9(Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27 f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf.Winer's Grammar, as above)

So unless Calvinists wish to be dishonest, they must take this verse and see that it totally REFUTES Limited (or Particular) Atonement.

Now let's see what John Calvin had to say about this, although he avoids saying "all men" but simply says "men". But then "with us all" (meaning all men) (but definitely not "the elect"):

"The second part of the statement points out the office of Christ -- his being our propitiation, (1 John 2:2,) because out of Him, God is displeased with us all, inasmuch as we have revolted from righteousness. [555] For what purpose, then, has God appeared to men in Christ? For the purpose of reconciliation -- that, hostilities being removed, those who were aliens, might be adopted as sons. Now, although Christ's coming as our Redeemer originated in the fountain of Divine love towards us, yet until men perceive that God has been propitiated by the Mediator, there must of necessity be a variance remaining, with respect to them, which shuts them out from access to God. On this point we shall speak more fully ere long... that the anger of the Father has been appeased by the sacrifice of the Son, and that the Son has been offered up for the expiation of the sins of men on this ground -- because God, exercising compassion towards them, receives them, on the ground of such a pledge, into favor.

 

[Steve Owen]

The Levitical Law was abrogated, not the moral Law.

This is correct. We may eat shrimp sandwiches to our hearts' content.

The Mosaic Laws was a covenant that could not either fall by the wayside, or not be fulfilled. Once it was fulfilled, it could be ended. Both Christ's perfection and blood, did just that.

If you mean the ceremonial and judicial laws, then we agree. But God's moral law, summarized in the Decalogue and epitomized in the 'Golden Rule' of Mark 12:29-31 etc. remains. 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters' (1 Corinthians 7:19). 'Not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ' (1 Corinthians 9:21). We are not indeed saved by keeping the moral law, but if we are saved, we will desire to keep it (Psalm 119 passim; John 14:15; Romans 7:22; Hebrews 8:10 etc.). None of the texts you quoted contradict this.

The Law by nature and design is a curse. How can you separate the two? Where there is Law, there is condemnation, and that which is prohibited arouses the flesh to sin. Both the Law itself, and the curse were rescinded.

Try living in a country like Somalia or Libya where there is no law and see how you get on. God's moral law condemns the unsaved (though it will lead the elect to Christ - Galatians 3:24), but to the believer, it is a delight. 'But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night' (Psalms 1:2). 'I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart' (Psalms 40:8).

 

[Steve Owen]

We need to take this Scripture into account in this connection:

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world* unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:19)

Hello Enoch,
Thanks for replying. It's bed-time in Britain right now, but I'll try to answer your post in more depth tomorrow.
For now, tell me, is God reconciled to all the inhabitants of the world, or only to some of them?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

. Once the Law ended, condemnation for all men ceased, as where there is no Law, there is no sin.

The above is in error my friend.

1) Condemnation only ceases for those who are in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1.

2) Those who are in the world are condemned, and again, those who are in Christ are not condemned; John 3:17, 18. Paul reiterated this again in Romans 8.

3) All the lost are under wrath, and those now in Christ were also under wrath; Ephesians 2:3. Romans 1 also teaches the lost are under wrath.

You sound an intelligent fellow yet you're making rudimentary and fundamental doctrinal errors while failing 2 Timothy 2:15. Your teachings logical conclusion is Universalism.

 

[DNB]

The above is in error my friend.

1) Condemnation only ceases for those who are in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1.

2) Those who are in the world are condemned, and again, those who are in Christ are not condemned; John 3:17, 18. Paul reiterated this again in Romans 8.

3) All the lost are under wrath, and those now in Christ were also under wrath; Ephesians 2:3. Romans 1 also teaches the lost are under wrath.

You sound an intelligent fellow yet you're making rudimentary and fundamental doctrinal errors while failing 2 Timothy 2:15. Your teachings logical conclusion is Universalism.

Of course P4T, condemnation has not been eradicated solely by the crucifixion of Christ. You are aware of the adjacent sentence to the one that you quoted, where I stipulated that 'we are under a new Law, the Law of Faith'? And sorry, I trust that between Steve & I, this did not require further qualification. That remark was sufficient wasn't it, to establish my view on the requirement to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour, in order to receive Salvation? Because it wasn't directly the topic at hand, I was brief about it, but explicit and deliberate all the same. We were explaining more so, the logistics of the Atonement, not the veracity of it, nor what it ultimately effectuated.

 

[DNB]

This is correct. We may eat shrimp sandwiches to our hearts' content.

If you mean the ceremonial and judicial laws, then we agree. But God's moral law, summarized in the Decalogue and epitomized in the 'Golden Rule' of Mark 12:29-31 etc. remains. 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters' (1 Corinthians 7:19). 'Not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ' (1 Corinthians 9:21). We are not indeed saved by keeping the moral law, but if we are saved, we will desire to keep it (Psalm 119 passim; John 14:15; Romans 7:22; Hebrews 8:10 etc.). None of the texts you quoted contradict this.

Try living in a country like Somalia or Libya where there is no law and see how you get on. God's moral law condemns the unsaved (though it will lead the elect to Christ - Galatians 3:24), but to the believer, it is a delight. 'But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night' (Psalms 1:2). 'I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart' (Psalms 40:8).

I know Steve, no one here is advocating antinomianism. God's command for all people, throughout all epochs, dispensations and covenants, is be Holy, as I am holy. No two ways about it, a universal law for now, and for eternity. I'm merely explaining my understanding of how the Levitical Law work, and what it signified. It was meant to establish righteousness, but not as the perfect means, for, as intended, it exposed sin more than it alleviated it.

Inherently, Law does this, and God knew it. Thus, due to it's imperfection on many levels (continuous sacrifices), it was meant to be superseded by a more righteous Law, that of Faith (Hebrews).
Rituals and regiments, don't reveal the depth of one's heart, for even a charlatan can comply, since the requirements are strictly mechanical. But faith truly exposes what is in one's heart. It reveals one's desire for justice and righteousness, despite their lack of ability to perform and act accordingly.

God is exonerating us based on intent and aspiration, not on performance. Believing in Christ implies all these characteristics i.e. acknowledgement of God's displeasure with sin, recognizing His grace and mercy, and appreciates the unfathomable love and devotion that Christ, the son, had for both His Father, and ours.

 

[Steve Owen]

...the Bible teaches very clearly that God is actually not propitiated towards everyone in the world without exception...

We need to take this Scripture into account in this connection:

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world* unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:19)

I note that you did not reply to my post #8. That's OK; we all get busy. The point is that God is actually not reconciled to all the inhabitants of the world. 'He who does not believe is condemned already' )John 3:18). So what does the text mean? It means all kinds of people: Jews and Greeks, barbarians, Scythians, slave and free (Colossians 3:11), but not every single one of any of those categories. The Gospel has gone out into the whole world (Matthew 24:14), but not everyone in the world is reconciled to God.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
*STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος (kosmos)
[Thayer provides the various meanings of kosmos in different contexts, but Calvinists choose to ignore what he applied to the above verse, that the world here means "the human race".]

5. the inhabitants of the world:
θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷκόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9(Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27 f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf.Winer's Grammar, as above)

So unless Calvinists wish to be dishonest, they must take this verse and see that it totally REFUTES Limited (or Particular) Atonement.

Well, fortunately I have a Thayer's Lexicon and I note first of all that he gives eight different meanings of kosmos, which is even more that the six that Pink offered in the O.P. But I also note that immediately after the section that you quote, he gives as an example, Archaios kosmos, 'the world of the antediluvians' (2 Peter 2:5). Immediately, you can see that this is not all the people in the world; it is the 'world of the ungodly' (NKJV). It excluded Noah and his family. So whatever Thayer meant by 'the inhabitants of the world' he certainly didn't mean 'all the inhabitants of the world.'

Now let's see what John Calvin had to say about this, although he avoids saying "all men" but simply says "men". But then "with us all" (meaning all men) (but definitely not "the elect"):

"The second part of the statement points out the office of Christ -- his being our propitiation, (1 John 2:2,) because out of Him, God is displeased with us all, inasmuch as we have revolted from righteousness. [555] For what purpose, then, has God appeared to men in Christ? For the purpose of reconciliation -- that, hostilities being removed, those who were aliens, might be adopted as sons. Now, although Christ's coming as our Redeemer originated in the fountain of Divine love towards us, yet until men perceive that God has been propitiated by the Mediator, there must of necessity be a variance remaining, with respect to them, which shuts them out from access to God. On this point we shall speak more fully ere long... that the anger of the Father has been appeased by the sacrifice of the Son, and that the Son has been offered up for the expiation of the sins of men on this ground -- because God, exercising compassion towards them, receives them, on the ground of such a pledge, into favor.

I don't see anything that refutes Definite Atonement there, but many people make the mistake of believing that Calvinism somehow depends on Calvin. Definite Atonement starts with Christ (e.g. Matthew 11:27), but William Tyndale was a Calvinist while Calvin (born 1509) was a spotty teenager and a Roman Catholic. 'By grace we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil, and graffed into Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began, and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us, openeth our hearts, and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the Spirit of Christ in us.' William Tyndale, 'A Pathway into the Scriptures,' c. 1525.

 

[Joseph77]

So then, what to learn? Who from ? Not calvin. Not tyndale. Not rc. Nor armniian.

No... what the Bible Say ?

 

[Jay Ross]

So then, what to learn? Who from ? Not calvin. Not tyndale. Not rc. Nor armniian.

No... what the Bible Say ?

And all of the above mentioned people believed they were responding from what the bible was saying. The problem with your statement is that whatever a person decides the bible is saying is true for them.

 

[DNB]

And all of the above mentioned people believed they were responding from what the bible was saying. The problem with your statement is that whatever a person decides the bible is saying is true them.

Yes, it's a maxim for me now, that whenever someone makes such an ambiguous, redundant and pretentious remark like 'it's what the Bible says', I automatically discredit their exegetical competency immediately, on any level.

 

[Joseph77]

You did not answer the question , only agreed with the problem.
What does the Bible say ?

@Jay Ross

 

[Joseph77]

The heart is how deceitful ?

So doing something carnal, fleshly, "to the hearts content" is how bad or sinful ?

 

[DNB]

You did not answer the question , only agreed with the problem.
What does the Bible say ?

@Jay Ross @Joseph77

He's saying that forming your question in that manner, is too subjective. Every Bible thumper believes that they are rightly dividing the Word of God, no matter how conservative or radical their conclusions are.
In other words, the Bible says a great deal many things, doesn't it, as in, there are various ways to interpret it? The question should be, what is one's hermeneutical guidelines, and then, their exegetical stability and soundness.

 

[marksman]

Here is the second text:
2 Peter 2:1, NKJV. ‘But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift judgement.’

This text is certainly a difficult text for those who support the Doctrines of Grace. At first glance, it seems to be saying that people bought by the Lord Jesus Christ may depart from the faith and deny His name, striking at the very heart of the doctrines of Particular Redemption and the Perseverance of the Saints. The commentaries (at least the ones I have read) do not give a great deal of help. They suggest that these teachers merely ‘claim’ to have been bought by Christ and point to verse 22: ‘A dog returns to its vomit….etc’ which indicates that these people were not regenerate. But this does not satisfy the supporters of ‘General Redemption’ who see this verse as a proof text that Christ died for all men, but that only those who believe are saved.

So how shall we answer this? The first part of the answer is to look at the word despotes, translated as ‘Lord’ in the NKJV and as ‘Master’ in other versions. Despotes is mostly used to describe human masters; the English word 'despot' comes from it. On the few occasions where it is used of God, it usually speaks of the Father, not the Son. The regular word for ‘Lord,’ when used of the Deity, is Kurios, which has divine overtones, being the word used by the writers of the Greek ‘Septuagint’ translation to render the Divine name, ‘Yahweh.’ The only other place in the N.T. where despotes might refer to Christ is Jude 4, but even here it seems to speak of God the Father. It is also important to observe that whatever this ‘buying’ entailed, there is no mention of the blood of the Lord Jesus as there is in 1 Peter 1:18 or Rev. 5:9.

So if despotes does indeed refer to God the Father, in what way did he ‘buy’ believers? We should first be aware that the verse is looking back to the O.T. period: ‘But there were false prophets among the people…..’ The Israelites were regarded as having been bought or redeemed out of Egypt by God. ‘Until the people pass over, O LORD, until the people pass over whom You have purchased’ (Exod. 15:16). ‘Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not te Father who bought you?’ (Deut. 32:6). God purchased the Israelites with His great power which He exhibited when He brought the plagues upon Egypt. But although all were ‘bought’ in that they all came out of Israel, very few of them ever reached the Promised Land (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-5).

It is here that we find the great difference between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant was made with all the Israelites and was conditional; only a small number of those were saved (Exod. 33:19; Isaiah 1:9). The New Covenant by contrast, was made with believers of every language and nation. These are Christ’s sheep and are bought with the blood of the Good Shepherd. They will come to Him and they shall never perish (John 10:27-28). The Old Covenant was conditional; the New is unconditional (compare Exod. 19;5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10).

This contrast is made especially clear in the famous ‘New Covenant’ prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31, repeated by the writer to the Hebrews:

‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the ccovenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put their laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I shall be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb. 8:8-12).

So we can clearly see that the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:1 were not Christians, since their ‘swift destruction’ proves that they were not in the New Covenant. Their allegiance to Christ was shown to be fleeting and insincere; they were never His sheep, and one day they would hear the dread words of the One they had professed to know but actually scorned, saying, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness’ (Matt. 7:23).

As a person who has been anointed to teach by the Holy Spirit, I would like to thank you for a fine body of work that you have done. Regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, it has certainly laid the groundwork for an in-depth study of the subject matter and that is most welcome primarily because we get so little of it here.

I shall bookmark your posts so that I can look at it further in an effort to expand my knowledge. Well done and may I say until one has done this, to criticise you is somewhat banal.

 

[Steve Owen]

So then, what to learn? Who from ? Not calvin. Not tyndale. Not rc. Nor armniian.

No... what the Bible Say ?

I don't think we should despise the teaching of those who have gone before us, but of course we must hold up all human writers to the light of the Scriptures to ensure that they match up.

I do not think that if you go through my posts in this thread that you will find them devoid of Scripture references (5 in post #12 alone).