Looking at 2 Pet 2:1

[beloved57]

Also the ones Peter writes of in 2 Pet 2:1, not only does he not write a thing about them being redeemed by the precious blood of Christ as he does write of his precious brethren in 1 Pet 1:18-19

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Which word redeemed is an entirely different word than the word bought in 2 Pet 2:1, and by which redemption redeems them from a vain manner of life, the ones in 2 Pet 2:1 were born into this world specifically to be destroyed as if they were brute beast 2 Pet 2:12

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

The word destroyed here means:

1. corruption, destruction, perishing
   1. that which is subject to corruption, what is perishable
   2. in the Christian sense, eternal misery in hell
2. in the NT, in an ethical sense, corruption i.e. moral decay
   
   Also Peter says they shall perish in their own corruption.
   
   They will die reprobates with no hope of redemption/salvation
   
   So their existence wasn't even for redemption by the blood of Christ, but contrary, to die as reprobates to the Faith.

 

[7djengo7]

Were the false teachers Peter was talking about only non-elect ones, or was he talking about all false teachers, including the elect ones?

Prove that he was talking about only non-elect false teachers, and not about elect ones.

 

[beloved57]

Were the false teachers Peter was talking about only non-elect ones, or was he talking about all false teachers, including the elect ones?

Prove that he was talking about only non-elect false teachers, and not about elect ones.

I dont need to prove that, its a rabbit trail. I will be happy to elaborate on points I made in post 21 if you desire. If you do desire read the post carefully and show me you understand the point made even though you may disagree.

 

[Nanja]

Also the ones Peter writes of in 2 Pet 2:1, not only does he not write a thing about them being redeemed by the precious blood of Christ as he does write of his precious brethren in 1 Pet 1:18-19

[FONT=&]18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Which word redeemed is an entirely different word than the word bought in 2 Pet 2:1, and by which redemption redeems them from a vain manner of life, the ones in 2 Pet 2:1 were born into this world specifically to be destroyed as if they were brute beast 2 Pet 2:12

12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

The word destroyed here means:

[/FONT]

1. corruption, destruction, perishing
   1. that which is subject to corruption, what is perishable
   2. in the Christian sense, eternal misery in hell
2. in the NT, in an ethical sense, corruption i.e. moral decay
   
   Also Peter says they shall perish in their own corruption.
   
   They will die reprobates with no hope of redemption/salvation
   
   So their existence wasn't even for redemption by the blood of Christ, but contrary, to die as reprobates to the Faith.

Amen !

 

[7djengo7]

I dont need to prove that, its a rabbit trail. I will be happy to elaborate on points I made in post 21 if you desire. If you do desire read the post carefully and show me you understand the point made even though you may disagree.

Of course you can't prove that Peter, in 2 Peter 2, was talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not elect false teachers! You and I both understand that you cannot do so. Thank you for succinctly illustrating my point. By saying "I dont [sic] need to prove that," you are admitting "I cannot prove that." If you really thought you could prove it, you'd try to prove it. Also, what you're saying, therein, is "I believe Peter was talking only about non-elect false teachers, but I desire to prevent you from believing it, and coming to agree with me, so I refuse to try to prove it to you."

Why do you publicly claim, then, that Peter is talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not about elect false teachers, and expect that somebody is going to take you seriously, so long as you refuse to try to prove it?

But, you're never going to try to prove it; you and I both know that you won't, because you can't. So, what you're going to do is simply run like a rabbit, away from any request to prove it. Then, you're going to try to save face by begging for me to ignore the fact that you can't prove it, and for me to go read some other nonsense you wrote, elsewhere.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course you can't prove that Peter, in 2 Peter 2, was talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not elect false teachers! You and I both understand that you cannot do so. Thank you for succinctly illustrating my point. By saying "I dont [sic] need to prove that," you are admitting "I cannot prove that." If you really thought you could prove it, you'd try to prove it. Also, what you're saying, therein, is "I believe Peter was talking only about non-elect false teachers, but I desire to prevent you from believing it, and coming to agree with me, so I refuse to try to prove it to you."

Why do you publicly claim, then, that Peter is talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not about elect false teachers, and expect that somebody is going to take you seriously, so long as you refuse to try to prove it?

But, you're never going to try to prove it; you and I both know that you won't, because you can't. So, what you're going to do is simply run like a rabbit, away from any request to prove it. Then, you're going to try to save face by begging for me to ignore the fact that you can't prove it, and for me to go read some other nonsense you wrote, elsewhere.

What "elect" false teachers do you have in mind? Greg Boyd?

 

[steko]

Who are the 'elect' in this verse?


Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Tambora]

Who are the 'elect' in this verse?


Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Israel

 

[beloved57]

Of course you can't prove that Peter, in 2 Peter 2, was talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not elect false teachers! You and I both understand that you cannot do so. Thank you for succinctly illustrating my point. By saying "I dont [sic] need to prove that," you are admitting "I cannot prove that." If you really thought you could prove it, you'd try to prove it. Also, what you're saying, therein, is "I believe Peter was talking only about non-elect false teachers, but I desire to prevent you from believing it, and coming to agree with me, so I refuse to try to prove it to you."

Why do you publicly claim, then, that Peter is talking only about non-elect false teachers, and not about elect false teachers, and expect that somebody is going to take you seriously, so long as you refuse to try to prove it?

But, you're never going to try to prove it; you and I both know that you won't, because you can't. So, what you're going to do is simply run like a rabbit, away from any request to prove it. Then, you're going to try to save face by begging for me to ignore the fact that you can't prove it, and for me to go read some other nonsense you wrote, elsewhere.

Not interested in your rabbit trail !

 

[Truster]

Were the false teachers Peter was talking about only non-elect ones, or was he talking about all false teachers, including the elect ones?

Prove that he was talking about only non-elect false teachers, and not about elect ones.

The only thing an elect false teacher is elected to be is a false teacher. The spirit at work in those of whom are false teachers is not the Holy Spirit. False teachers are unregenerate, unrepentant and uninspired.

PS Elect means just that. The word elect can mean elected unto salvation or elected unto destruction.

 

[7djengo7]

What "elect" false teachers do you have in mind? Greg Boyd?

You know, I really don't know much of anything about Greg Boyd, but I can affirm the following two things:

1. I, for one, do not know that Greg Boyd is elect. Do you?
2. I, for one, do not know that Greg Boyd is non-elect. Do you?

Now, would you say that Greg Boyd is not elect? In your last comment, when you put quotes around the word elect, you seemed to be saying that Greg Boyd is not elect.

So, here's yet another question for you to stonewall against:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

Happy stonewalling and fleeing from being called on to try to defend Calvinism!

 

[MennoSota]

You know, I really don't know much of anything about Greg Boyd, but I can affirm the following two things:

1. I, for one, do not know that Greg Boyd is elect. Do you?
2. I, for one, do not know that Greg Boyd is non-elect. Do you?

Now, would you say that Greg Boyd is not elect? In your last comment, when you put quotes around the word elect, you seemed to be saying that Greg Boyd is not elect.

So, here's yet another question for you to stonewall against:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect? Yes or No?

Happy stonewalling and fleeing from being called on to try to defend Calvinism!

It is not for me to speculate about God's gracious choice in regard to Boyd. I can only say that his open theism is just Pelagian heresy rewarmed for another ignorant group of people who fail to grasp their utter corruption and God's absolute sovereignty.

 

[7djengo7]

Not interested in your rabbit trail !

Since you are incapable of answering my question, or of even trying to answer it, could you please direct me to someone who you think is actually trying to defend Calvinism, so that I could ask it of them, instead, and maybe they will at least try to answer it? Please? MennoSota and Ask Mr. Religion are out of the question, of course; see, those guys are on the same page as you--they can't, and refuse to try to answer questions about Calvinism, but they really love multiplying (in keeping with your rabbit trail theme) meaningless posts in reaction to posts in which people have set forth Calvinism-damning questions and objections.

I give you a little credit, however, which I couldn't give MennoSota. See, when I asked you to prove such and such, you flat-out said to me, "I dont [sic] need to prove that", which was your acknowledgement that you can't prove what I had asked you to prove. Whereas, with MennoSota, I asked him some questions, and he has thus far stonewalled against every one of them, never answering even a single one of them, and yet, he has had the gall to lie (repeatedly) to me, saying that he had answered all of them!

 

[7djengo7]

It is not for me to speculate about God's gracious choice in regard to Boyd. I can only say that his open theism is just Pelagian heresy rewarmed for another ignorant group of people who fail to grasp their utter corruption and God's absolute sovereignty.

Can't you just answer a Yes or No question by saying either "Yes" or "No"?

I didn't ask you to speculate about anything. I asked you: Is Greg Boyd non-elect?

If you feel you can't answer "Yes," and you feel you can't answer "No," well, it's OK to answer "I do not know." So, please try once more to answer my question, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks.

 

[MennoSota]

Can't you just answer a Yes or No question by saying either "Yes" or "No"?

I didn't ask you to speculate about anything. I asked you: Is Greg Boyd non-elect?

If you feel you can't answer "Yes," and you feel you can't answer "No," well, it's OK to answer "I do not know." So, please try once more to answer my question, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks.

What causes you to imagine there is a yes or no answer to your question. Did Jesus answer the Pharisees questions with a yes or no answer?

 

[7djengo7]

What causes you to imagine there is a yes or no answer to your question. Did Jesus answer the Pharisees questions with a yes or no answer?

What causes you to be so averse to logic?

Either Greg Boyd is elect or Greg Boyd is not elect. In other words, one of the two, following propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

1. Greg Boyd is elect,
2. Greg Boyd is not elect.

My question to you is which of those two propositions is true? There is no middle ground, here. You might not know which one you ought to say is true, and that's alright. But, if you can't even agree that one of them must be true, and that the other one must be false, why, then, you are an enemy of basic logic, and you've got mental problems that I, for one, can't solve.

So, again, if you can't tell which of those propositions is true, and which is false, you should at least be capable of stating that one of them must be true, and the other must be false. Even though you don't know which one is the false one, and which the true one.

 

[beloved57]

Since you are incapable of answering my question, or of even trying to answer it, could you please direct me to someone who you think is actually trying to defend Calvinism, so that I could ask it of them, instead, and maybe they will at least try to answer it? Please? MennoSota and Ask Mr. Religion are out of the question, of course; see, those guys are on the same page as you--they can't, and refuse to try to answer questions about Calvinism, but they really love multiplying (in keeping with your rabbit trail theme) meaningless posts in reaction to posts in which people have set forth Calvinism-damning questions and objections.

I give you a little credit, however, which I couldn't give MennoSota. See, when I asked you to prove such and such, you flat-out said to me, "I dont [sic] need to prove that", which was your acknowledgement that you can't prove what I had asked you to prove. Whereas, with MennoSota, I asked him some questions, and he has thus far stonewalled against every one of them, never answering even a single one of them, and yet, he has had the gall to lie (repeatedly) to me, saying that he had answered all of them!

Not interested in your rabbit trail !

 

[MennoSota]

What causes you to be so averse to logic?

Either Greg Boyd is elect or Greg Boyd is not elect. In other words, one of the two, following propositions must be true, and the other must be false:

1. Greg Boyd is elect,
2. Greg Boyd is not elect.

My question to you is which of those two propositions is true? There is no middle ground, here. You might not know which one you ought to say is true, and that's alright. But, if you can't even agree that one of them must be true, and that the other one must be false, why, then, you are an enemy of basic logic, and you've got mental problems that I, for one, can't solve.

So, again, if you can't tell which of those propositions is true, and which is false, you should at least be capable of stating that one of them must be true, and the other must be false. Even though you don't know which one is the false one, and which the true one.

Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?
Boyd imagines he has claimed and chosen God. Who makes the choice, regarding citizenship in God's kingdom? Does man get to claim which kingdom he will have citizenship or does the King get to claim who is a citizen in His Kingdom?

 

[7djengo7]

Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?

That's exactly what I'm asking you:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect?

So, you neither affirm that he is, nor that he isn't. And, as I said, that's OK, because you can always respond, saying, "I don't know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or not"; and that's exactly what you've done, here. You're telling me that you don't know whether or not Greg Boyd is non-elect. Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered.

Now, let's consider the two following items:

1. You admit that you do not know that Greg Boyd is non-elect,
2. You consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

Would you say that ALL false teachers are non-elect, or only that SOME false teachers are non-elect, while OTHER false teachers are elect? I suppose the main question I am aiming at, here, is this: Are SOME false teachers elect?

 

[MennoSota]

That's exactly what I'm asking you:

Is Greg Boyd non-elect?

So, you neither affirm that he is, nor that he isn't. And, as I said, that's OK, because you can always respond, saying, "I don't know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or not"; and that's exactly what you've done, here. You're telling me that you don't know whether or not Greg Boyd is non-elect. Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered.

Now, let's consider the two following items:

1. You admit that you do not know that Greg Boyd is non-elect,
2. You consider Greg Boyd to be a false teacher.

Would you say that ALL false teachers are non-elect, or only that SOME false teachers are non-elect, while OTHER false teachers are elect? I suppose the main question I am aiming at, here, is this: Are SOME false teachers elect?

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