Bible Question:
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.] |
Bible Answer: 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. |