SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : a question for a Calvinist

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Comment from the peanut gallery ...



We may find that there is greater nutrition in peanut than in the deliberations here. :-) In a sense your comment belongs to a different part of the discussion. Personal responsibility is another topic where Calvinists and others disagree but this discussion is on the L and the P rather than on the I of TULIP.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 9:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
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?



this is suggested in the URl that Taylor gave. I reject it for the reasons already mentioned in my reply to him.


Quote:
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.


I am surprised at Piper in this comment. The payer of the propitiation is plainly the Father, the payment that was made was the Son. Rom 3:25


Quote:
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. I


I must ask.. is there honestly anyone in the whole world who would believe this interpretation?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 10:00Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re: a question for a Calvinist

philologos:
>>>Verse 1 ends "...even denying the Lord who bought them" - can this verse mean anything other than Jesus died for the false prophets in question?

Very nice point!

Could you post a link to your website please where this is being discussed.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 10:41Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

Philogos,

What about a meaning to 2Peter1:9 that is within the atonement prophesied by Caiaphas in John 11:51-52. What if Jesus "bought" this salvation for the Jewish nation which would incorporate the false teachers that were Jews of that time. This would restrict Peter's references to the false teachers to the teachers and believers of the time he was speaking. If this were so, I realize that the atonement of the Jewish nation would necessitate a realigning of the idea of atonement for Jews which I haven't really thought through but I think that the line of thought is not totally against Scripture.

 2008/12/10 10:52Profile
JoanM
Member



Joined: 2008/4/7
Posts: 797


 Re: Who paid?

Here I was going to post something on the definition of revival thread and seeing the name Philologos I find part of it fits as well here.

Piper: [i]"...it cannot be a reference to the atonement. Why? Because the atonement was made by Jesus, not the Father."[/i]
Philologos: [i]"The payer of the propitiation is plainly the Father, the payment that was made was the Son. Rom 3:25"[/i]

Had Abraham sacrificed Isaac, who would you say paid, Abraham or Isaac?
Is the Father in the Son? Is the Son in the Father?
Most plainly in Rom 3:25, God .... set forth.

This is a little thing and perhaps a different letter so I am not saying there is revival in this thread. Just looking.

 2008/12/10 10:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

whyme on 2008/12/10 15:52:56

Quote:
What if Jesus "bought" this salvation for the Jewish nation which would incorporate the false teachers that were Jews of that time. This would restrict Peter's references to the false teachers to the teachers and believers of the time he was speaking. If this were so, I realize that the atonement of the Jewish nation would necessitate a realigning of the idea of atonement for Jews which I haven't really thought through but I think that the line of thought is not totally against Scripture.


HI whyme,
Have you heard the comment... when you are in a hole, stop digging? :-)

Isn't this suggestion just going to cause your view even more trouble?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 11:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Had Abraham sacrificed Isaac, who would you say paid, Abraham or Isaac?
Is the Father in the Son? Is the Son in the Father?
Most plainly in Rom 3:25, God .... set forth.



Technically the word used for 'propitiation' here is 'the place of propitiation' or the propitiatory but most folk would say that doesn't change the issues. God [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4388&t=KJV]set forth[/url]; that could be translated 'put into place' the propitiatory. The one who pays the bill here is clearly 'God'. The price of 'giving a son' is, in a sense, an even greater price that giving yourself. This is the way the scriptures express the truth... God so loved the world that he gave His Son...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 11:13Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

Philogos,

I'm not trying to support a view but rather examine Scripture. I'm not taking a shot at defending anything. You raised the issue of the L in TULIP. I am just asking you to look at John 11:51 and see that the Scripture says that Jesus died for the Jewish nation and God's "children" scattered abroad. Either the the reference to children is universal to the mankind or it is not. I think it is not a universal reference but intended to refer to those who are born again.

The next point of the discussion was to try to resolve the text of 2Peter that you very legimitately raise. Can 2Peter be read to be consistent with John 11:51. I think it can if you restrict the passage reference to Jewish teachers ( who would repudiate the lordship of Christ ) as those who were " bought".

I thought that trying to make Scripture interpret Scripture was a useful exercise but I read in your response that I came off as defensive. I'm not, you are obviously wiser than I am in these things ( I mean that sincerely ) but I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.

 2008/12/10 11:14Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

Philogos,

I'm not trying to support a view but rather examine Scripture. I'm not taking a shot at defending anything. You raised the issue of the L in TULIP. I am just asking you to look at John 11:51 and see that the Scripture says that Jesus died for the Jewish nation and God's "children" scattered abroad. Either the the reference to children is universal to the mankind or it is not. I think it is not a universal reference but intended to refer to those who are born again.

The next point of the discussion was to try to resolve the text of 2Peter that you very legimitately raise. Can 2Peter be read to be consistent with John 11:51. I think it can if you restrict the passage reference to Jewish teachers ( who would repudiate the lordship of Christ ) as those who were " bought".

I thought that trying to make Scripture interpret Scripture was a useful exercise but I read in your response that I came off as defensive. I'm not, you are obviously wiser than I am in these things ( I mean that sincerely ) but I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.

 2008/12/10 11:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I'm a little put off by the apparent condescension. If I've misread your response my apologies.


Didn't I put a twinkling eye into that email. This was my attempt at a bantering humour not condescension. My apologies.

Ah, I see, I used the wrong smilicon... I meant ;-) not :-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 11:30Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy