2 Peter 2:1 Master who bought them

[Lees]

Is of God? Where did that come from? It's not God's faith, God does not believe for us.

Lee's, scripture disagrees with you. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 1 John 5:1.

Your welcome.

You brought up that faith is the gift. See post #(69). Thus I addressed faith as a gift of God. Do you disagree now? (Eph. 2:8) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

So why the confusion?

I don't disagree with (1 John 5:1).

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

Again, I explained what I meant. See post #(72) (64). "The shedding of Blood paid the price for all sin. It is the basis for our salvation. Christ died for all, but not all are saved."

I then asked 'why'? Post #(72).

Lees

It would seem you do support mysteries of parables are made know through the temporal historical alone. Therefore removing the spiritual eternal understanding according to the wonderful prescription given in 2 Corinthians 4:18.

Will you obey what the living word says? Look not at the temporal literal historical.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, (blood) but at the things which are not seen: (no blood) for the things which are seen (blood) are temporal; but the things which are not seen (no blood) are eternal.

Why bypass the loving commandment and rightly divide. Why not simply look for the spiritual invisible understanding, called faith (Christ's)

Can you worship something you cannot, see?

Does eternal God who created from the dust flesh and blood, have flesh and blood?

Scripture infallibly informs blood cannot enter heaven and must be poured out so it can return to the field of clay.

Why look for the spiritual understanding like those who made Jesus into a circus seal? Work some magic perform a miracle then when we see the literal blood the we will believe God for a held a second. why marvel after the things already seen?

Literal blood of the sacrifices must be poured out to show unseen spirit life was given.

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

 

[brightfame52]

When did you get saved?

Lees

Thats not your concern, be concerned about Christ dishonoring statements you make.

 

[brightfame52]

No. I explained what I meant. The shedding of Blood paid the price for all sin. It is the basis for our salvation. Christ died for all, but not all are saved. Why?

Lees

You did explain what you meant, you stated it clearly:

Now, the point of false teachers denying the Lord that bought them, shows that the price was paid for all born of Adam. But though the price was paid, that did not save anyone.

That made manifest what you believe about the shed blood of Christ for them He died.

 

[Lees]

Thats not your concern, be concerned about Christ dishonoring statements you make.

The question has to do with what we are discussing and your accusation against me. So, it is my concern. Which you recognize, which is why you refuse to answer. In other words, were you saved by Christ's blood before you exercised faith in Christ?

And another question I asked you that you did not answer: Christ died for all, yet all are not saved. Christ's blood was shed for all, yet all are not saved. Why?

I haven't made any dishonoring statements about Christ to be concerned over.

You did explain what you meant, you stated it clearly:



That made manifest what you believe about the shed blood of Christ for them He died.

Yes, I did explain it clearly. And you disagree. Yet that's all you can say.

Lees

 

[Arial]

@brightfame52 @Lees

Lets calm down and hold off on accusations about someones salvation.

In reading through the thread, I see that a misunderstanding occurred by the way in which something was stated.

There is no salvation without the Blood. But the Blood being shed, the price paid, saved no one.

It is a little hard to read that and get past it to pay attention to what is said afterward regarding faith. It is badly worded and not put into its proper place, kind of jumbling two topics into one and it is an inaccurate statement.

To say the blood saved no one is antithetical to salvation. And so is saying, " the blood paid the price for all sin." (Post # 72) The blood paid the price for the sins of the elect. If it paid the price for all sin, there would be no need of faith, and all would be saved.

But the point being made, in my understanding of the posts, is that no one is saved without faith. No one is saved until they come to faith. This is true, but the elect are predestined to come to Christ in faith, and therefore the price, the shedding of the blood, purchased them when it was shed. Faith is the application of the work of Christ to the person. The work of Christ was already done and it was successful in doing what it was intended to do.

 

[brightfame52]

@Arial

@brightfame52 @Lees

Lets calm down and hold off on accusations about someones salvation.

I dont judge someones salvation ultimaetly, for they could be one of Gods elect. We all, even the elect are deceived at one time. Paul said once Titus 3:3

For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

 

[brightfame52]

@Arial

It is a little hard to read that and get past it to pay attention to what is said afterward regarding faith. It is badly worded and not put into its proper place, kind of jumbling two topics into one and it is an inaccurate statement.

Nevertheless, for a person to say "There is no salvation without the Blood. But the Blood being shed, the price paid, saved no one." reveals that they dont believe Christs blood shed in and of itself saved anyone. Thats not true, it in fact did save/redeem to God everyone it was shed for 1 Pet 1:18-19 and thats what God given Faith embraces as truth.

Again the redeeming blood of Christ, actually redeemed us to God, which is salvation Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Now what is their testimony ? How were they saved/redeemed unto God ?

 

[Arial]

@Arial



Nevertheless, for a person to say "There is no salvation without the Blood. But the Blood being shed, the price paid, saved no one." reveals that they dont believe Christs blood shed in and of itself saved anyone. Thats not true, it in fact did save/redeem to God everyone it was shed for 1 Pet 1:18-19 and thats what God given Faith embraces as truth.

Again the redeeming blood of Christ, actually redeemed us to God, which is salvation Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Now what is their testimony ? How were they saved/redeemed unto God ?

I agree, however the discussion needs to be conducted according to the rules. Just as the post above said what needed to be said without the use of accusatory personal pronouns. That is all I was saying when I posted post #86.

 

[makesends]

You asked me in post #(65) what does that faith believe. My answer was very precise in post #(66). To which I gave Scripture to support.

Again, if you disagree, explain why?

Where did I 'specifically'say 'it was not faith in the blood of Christ'?

My point is that the Blood shed didn't save anyone. It was/is the price paid. Until one believes, though the price has been paid, he is not saved.

Lees

My point is that your statement, your point, is entirely dependent on a temporal point of view as the only factual way of things. We ARE saved by his shed blood.

Christ's shed blood is not only a fulfillment of the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system was built on what Christ did. Are you going to say that I said that backwards too? It is inconsequential logically, as to what it is, and as to its value, just when in History it happened.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have ALREADY FORGIVEN us our sins.

If we don't believe, we are ALREADY CONDEMNED.

 

[makesends]

The question has to do with what we are discussing and your accusation against me. So, it is my concern. Which you recognize, which is why you refuse to answer. In other words, were you saved by Christ's blood before you exercised faith in Christ?

There it is again. You are asking the question assuming a temporal sequence as the only valid measure. You are wrong.

The point in history's timeline when one exercises faith in Christ is irrelevant as to the fact of for whom Christ died. God does not need a temporal sequence to do whatever he chooses within temporal history. If He did it, it is fact, without reference to further causes and effects.

 

[Lees]

@brightfame52 @Lees

Lets calm down and hold off on accusations about someones salvation.

In reading through the thread, I see that a misunderstanding occurred by the way in which something was stated.

It is a little hard to read that and get past it to pay attention to what is said afterward regarding faith. It is badly worded and not put into its proper place, kind of jumbling two topics into one and it is an inaccurate statement.

To say the blood saved no one is antithetical to salvation. And so is saying, " the blood paid the price for all sin." (Post # 72) The blood paid the price for the sins of the elect. If it paid the price for all sin, there would be no need of faith, and all would be saved.

But the point being made, in my understanding of the posts, is that no one is saved without faith. No one is saved until they come to faith. This is true, but the elect are predestined to come to Christ in faith, and therefore the price, the shedding of the blood, purchased them when it was shed. Faith is the application of the work of Christ to the person. The work of Christ was already done and it was successful in doing what it was intended to do.

I did not say what I did in a vacuum. It's not hard to get past it once you read all but one line. Thus I disagree. It's not badly worded. It's badly accepted.

The point of what I have said is that the Blood of Christ paid the price for redemption for all. But all are not saved. Why? Because all did not accept the Christ. Accept the faith.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Lees]

My point is that your statement, your point, is entirely dependent on a temporal point of view as the only factual way of things. We ARE saved by his shed blood.

Christ's shed blood is not only a fulfillment of the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system was built on what Christ did. Are you going to say that I said that backwards too? It is inconsequential logically, as to what it is, and as to its value, just when in History it happened.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have ALREADY FORGIVEN us our sins.

If we don't believe, we are ALREADY CONDEMNED.

If we are saved by His blood, then all are saved. Correct? For He died for all.

The sacrificial system is built on those who come to God in faith. Else they don't bring the sacrifice.

True: if we don't believe we are condemned. It doesn't matter that the blood of Christ was shed.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@makesends:

Why don't you address my post to you in post #(79)? Instead of ignoring it in hopes that I don't catch it.

Instead you want to enter into what I said in anothers post. Why? What else can I conclude? Because you have no answer.

I have no interest in answering to you what I said to anothers post when you refuse to answer to me in a post addressed to you.

Lees

 

[makesends]

@makesends:

Why don't you address my post to you in post #(79)? Instead of ignoring it in hopes that I don't catch it.

Instead you want to enter into what I said in anothers post. Why? What else can I conclude? Because you have no answer.

I have no interest in answering to you what I said to anothers post when you refuse to answer to me in a post addressed to you.

Lees

Possibly because I didn't see it. I'm not sure, actually. I doubt it was the reason you attribute to me. Though, sometimes I do ignore a post that is combative or presumptive. Or because my answer would not be productive. Anyhow, let's see: #79 :

You asked me in post #(65) what does that faith believe. My answer was very precise in post #(66). To which I gave Scripture to support.

Again, if you disagree, explain why?

Where did I 'specifically'say 'it was not faith in the blood of Christ'?

My point is that the Blood shed didn't save anyone. It was/is the price paid. Until one believes, though the price has been paid, he is not saved.

Lees

Oh. This is going to be fun. I've never been good at connect-the-posts.

By the way, it is bad logic to assume that because a person does not answer that he has no answer. Perhaps I could extrapolate from that, that some kind of similar logic is being used in your interpretation of scripture.

#64

There is no salvation without the Blood. But the Blood being shed, the price paid, saved no one. Just because Jesus died way back there on the Cross, say 33 A.D. about, didn't save you and me at that time. It provided the basis, the cost, upon which we and any could be redeemed. But the one factor that does determine salvation, still remained. FAITH. Until we exercised faith in Christ, we were not saved. We can be called the elect, but though we are elect, we were not saved till we exercised faith in Christ.

The only thing that liberates one from unbelief, is faith.

My opinion.

Lees

#65 :

What does that 'faith' believe?

#66 :

Today, that faith is in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour.

Prior to the coming of Christ, that faith is always in the promise of God of Him who was to come. Christ.

Saving faith is always based somehow on Christ. (Gen. 3:15) (Gen. 15:6) (Ex. 12:3-11) (John 3;16-18)

Lees

Post 66 does not answer my question, though it did satisfy me as to what your thinking was. Maybe that, and the fact that you didn't ask for an answer, nor ask any question in that post, is why I didn't answer.

Later: Nope, my bad. I did answer, in post
#90 :

My point is that your statement, your point, is entirely dependent on a temporal point of view as the only factual way of things. We ARE saved by his shed blood.

Christ's shed blood is not only a fulfillment of the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system was built on what Christ did. Are you going to say that I said that backwards too? It is inconsequential logically, as to what it is, and as to its value, just when in History it happened.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have ALREADY FORGIVEN us our sins.

If we don't believe, we are ALREADY CONDEMNED.

But, anticipating your not accepting that as a direct-enough answer, I'll say: I asked more or less rhetorically what that faith believes. (You had said, "...the Blood being shed, the price paid, saved no one"; then, in the same paragraph you said, "It provided the basis, the cost, upon which we and any could be redeemed.", which I doubt you will admit the one statement contradicts the other. Then you said, still in the same post, "But the one factor that does determine salvation, still remained. FAITH. Until we exercised faith in Christ, we were not saved." So, instead of asking what that faith is based on, I asked what that faith believes.) You said more of the same as the post before, as I remember, but here accenting the point that Saving Faith is somehow based on Christ, which did not tell me what Saving Faith believes.

Anyhow, what I was hoping to get at is that what saving faith believes, is that Christ shed his blood in our place. So, if the faith believes that, and that faith saves us, then the shed blood did save us, or it was useless. THUS, when we have the faith is not the cause of our salvation and can be left entirely out of the equation. WHEN we were saved is irrelevant.

The following is a BTW, so you can dismiss it as a Red Herring:

Interestingly, you did say in post #64, (my bold underline added), "The only thing that liberates one from unbelief, is faith." which sounds suspiciously like sola fide.

 

[Lees]

@makesends: concerning post #(95)

Post #(66) did answer your question.

I stated in post #(66) that saving faith is always based somehow on Christ.

The point being, you are making an issue out of 'what faith believes'. Which has nothing to do with what I said. What I have said is that the blood of Christ saved no one. It paid the price for sin, which is the basis for any being saved. But though He shed His blood for all, all are not saved. Why? Because all do not have the faith.

Don't forget post #(93).

Lees