Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Denying the Master | 2 Peter | stephanos | 1033 | ||
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.] |
||||||
2 | Denying the Master | 2 Peter | kalos | 1037 | ||
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. |
||||||
3 | Denying the Master | 2 Peter | stephanos | 1038 | ||
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? |
||||||
4 | Denying the Master | 2 Peter | kalos | 1042 | ||
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) |
||||||