2 Peter 2:1 Master who bought them

[brightfame52]

@Lees

But the one factor that does determine salvation, still remained. FAITH.

And not the Blood of Jesus, again, a confirmation of a horrible thing to say about the redeeming blood of Christ.

 

[Arial]

No, only the ones He shed His Blood for, His Sheep Jn 10;11,15

As in, "I lay down my life for MY sheep."

 

[brightfame52]

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

Your position dishonors the redeeming blood of Christ because you dont believe in its saving efficacy, that it provides its own application. Which it does, it redeems from a vain manner of life 1 Pet 1:18-19

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;

The word from is the greek preposition ek :

1. out of, from, by, away from

Its a powerful word, it causes a detachment, a separation from

The Greek preposition "ek" or "ex" is used to indicate origin or source, often translated as "from" or "out of." It can denote physical separation, such as coming out of a place, or metaphorical separation, such as being delivered from a situation. It is also used to express cause or reason, indicating the source of an action or condition.

Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, prepositions like "ek" were essential for expressing relationships between objects, people, and concepts. The use of "ek" in the New Testament often reflects a Hebraic understanding of God's deliverance and provision, emphasizing the divine origin of salvation and blessings. The preposition is frequently used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which influenced its usage in the New Testament.

Strong's Greek: 1537. ἐκ (ek or ex) -- from, out of, by, away from

It separates from false religion , so it provides a conversion experience.

 

[Lees]

The way it is worded is badly accepted because the way it is worded is a lie that denies what the scriptures say about it.
Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made your overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

1 Peter 1:18-19 Knowng that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Romans 3:25 Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh in in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

You are conflating the shedding of his blood with the way in which it is received---through faith.

Answer this, regarding Lev 17. Was the blood of the rams and bulls effectual when it was shed or not? So was Christ's blood effectual when it was shed, not at some later date as each of the elect are brought into the covenant.

Well, to start with, faith cannot be accepted or rejected. A person either has it or he doesn't have it.

What does "paid for" mean? I will tell you. It means that whatever is paid for is paid for. So you cannot logically say that it was paid for but only potentially paid for. If the sins of all men were paid for, then no one owes the debt ever again. It cannot be contingent upon anything. I do hope you address that logic this time instead of ignoring it.

None of the verses you present do I disagree with.

I do not devalue the Blood of Christ. As I have said, it is the basis for our salvation. Without it there is no salvation.

I don't see how I am conflating the Blood with faith. The Blood is shed but one is not saved till he exercise faith.

Concerning (Lev. 17) I have always said the Blood of Christ is the price paid. It is the basis for our salvation. Of course it is effectual. But, is it effectual to the man who doesn't obey concerning it? (Lev. 17:4) " And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle...to offer an offering unto the LORD...that man shall be cut off from among his people." Also (Lev. 17:9) Note in (Lev. 16:34). "And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year...." Did that blood apply to the Israelite who did not believe? The Israel that is not Israel? (Rom. 9:6) It was for the whole nation of Israel, yet not all in Israel were saved. Why?

Of course 'paid for' means paid for. I haven't said otherwise. but thanks for that definition. When Adam sinned death passed upon all men. His whole race. (Rom. 5:12) As a result all were made sinners and sinned. But their sin was not imputed to them because there was no law. (Rom. 5:13). Thus there was a 'contengency' acknowledged by God.

Just like with the Blood of Christ. Shed for all. but none are saved just because it is shed. There must be 'faith'.

Lees

 

[Lees]

It would help if you didn't contradict yourself. Now, I realize there was more in the context of those two statements where you attempted to clarify yourself, but the two statements are still contradictory.

That would clearly have individuals providing the redeeming ingredient and power of the shed blood of Christ. Magical blood, not effectual blood. Which by the way "blood" goes back to "the life is in the blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." One sheds enough blood, one dies. It is the principle of substitution. A death in the place of a death. In the sacrificial system, the ram or bull died instead of the sinner. Now apply that logically to the final sacrifice of Jesus. It is not magical blood that we gather to ourselves and apply by "accepting" faith.

You have said things in other post that suggest you are Calvinistic in your theology and doctrine. But your understanding of the blood and the claim that it does nothing until it is appropriated by a person is counterintuitive to the doctrine of election. If you apply the doctrine of election to the shed blood of Christ on the cross, it becomes apparent that Jesus died for specific people, and only for specific people. Therefore when that blood was shed it was effectual for them, and God would effectually bring them to faith in Christ.

Well then, the problom is you not observing the context.

Magical? Was your faith 'magical'? Strange statement.

When the Blood of Christ was shed in about 33 A.D., were you saved? Or were you saved when you exercised faith in Christ. Were you ever lost? Just because you were elect, didn't mean the Blood of Christ saved you when you were lost. Yes, the Blood could always redeem. But it didn't redeem any till they exercised faith.

The doctrine of election is not contrary to Christ dying for all. Because it is faith that saves one based upon the Blood that paid the price. And that faith is a gift from God. Christ could die for all, but without faith one is not redeemed. Elect or not.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Lees



No, only the ones He shed His Blood for, His Sheep Jn 10;11,15

All the unbelieving condemned goats He didnt shed His Blood for, they were vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.

Like those false teachers of 2 Pet 2:1 verse 12 informs us they were born inorder to be destroyed like 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;

Why would Christ shed a drop of blood for them ? He didnt !

Your quote of mine, where did you get it?

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

Well then, the problom is you not observing the context.

Magical? Was your faith 'magical'? Strange statement.

When the Blood of Christ was shed in about 33 A.D., were you saved? Or were you saved when you exercised faith in Christ. Were you ever lost? Just because you were elect, didn't mean the Blood of Christ saved you when you were lost. Yes, the Blood could always redeem. But it didn't redeem any till they exercised faith.

The doctrine of election is not contrary to Christ dying for all. Because it is faith that saves one based upon the Blood that paid the price. And that faith is a gift from God. Christ could die for all, but without faith one is not redeemed. Elect or not.

Lees

When the Blood of Christ was shed in about 33 A.D. Did it return to the dust from where it was formed a sign in order to show unseen Holy Spirit life was given. A living sacrifice?

Remember it was not the literal slaying of the lamb, but a promised three days and nights demonstration of the Lamb of God slain from the foundation, The six days the Holy Father did work.

The demonstration began in the garden moved to the hill and last the Tomb. The focus on the unseen eternal Lamb slain from the beginning or foundation.

It's easy to get mixed up and put hope in the temporal . . .the two must be mixed.

1 Corinthians 2:3-5;And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:That your (new born again) faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

 

[Arial]

Well then, the problom is you not observing the context.

Or is it you?

Magical? Was your faith 'magical'? Strange statement.

That would be a strange statement if had ever said any such thing. I said magical blood----which it would be if it did nothing when it was shed but only became something when someone activated faith. Meaning, our faith gives it its power to save. Perhaps your view stems from over literalization? By not recognizing that when it says his shed blood for atonement of the sins of many, it refers to his death?

When the Blood of Christ was shed in about 33 A.D., were you saved?

Yes. It is how he purchased me. I was purchased before the foundation of the world. I always belonged to God. There was no question from his view that he would lead me to Christ.

Or were you saved when you exercised faith in Christ.

I did not exercise faith in Christ. God gave me to Christ. God the Holy Spirit did this in me and for me by regeneration. With it came believing (faith) in the person and work of Christ. One cannot believe what they do not or cannot hear. That is when God placed me in Christ. Christ had already done the work of shedding his blood on the cross. He had already paid my debt. He did not have to shed his blood again, and me and my faith are not what gave it that power to save me.

Were you ever lost?

I was a wandering sheep, dead in my trespasses and sin, who needed to be brought into the fold, but I was always one of his sheep. I was never a goat who was transformed into a sheep by faith. At just the right time, God opened my ears to hear the voice of the Shepherd and I recognized his voice and followed him. He knew me, long before I knew him. (John 10) He had already done the work necessary by shedding his blood, and rising again from the dead, and ascending back to the Father. Don't make the mistake of arriving at off the mark doctrinal beliefs by putting God and his work for salvation within our time constraints by saying things like faith is what gives saving power to the blood. (Paraphrase.)

Just because you were elect, didn't mean the Blood of Christ saved you when you were lost.

If it didn't save me when I was lost, how could it save me when I am found?

Yes, the Blood could always redeem. But it didn't redeem any till they exercised faith.

Do you not see how that statement puts the death of Jesus of no value until a person gives it power by believing? It is actually what Christian Science teaches, though they go even farther off base than you in saying he could not and did not save anyone. What they say, and this is a quote from one of the writings of the founder of CS, "There was no more power in the blood of Jesus to save, when he shed it on the cross than when it ran through his veins." So be careful. Don't try to talk about two things at once by conflating them as one thing. (The blood, (Christ's death) and faith.) And that is what you do when you claim that blood is just blood until faith comes along and gives it saving power.

The doctrine of election is not contrary to Christ dying for all. Because it is faith that saves one based upon the Blood that paid the price. And that faith is a gift from God. Christ could die for all, but without faith one is not redeemed. Elect or not.

If Christ only died for the elect, (Calvinism) why do you continue to claim that he died for all?

 

[Arial]

I don't see how I am conflating the Blood with faith. The Blood is shed but one is not saved till he exercise faith.

Try making your argument with what the blood represents----the death of Christ in our place---instead of the word "blood", and see what you come up with.

 

[brightfame52]

Your quote of mine, where did you get it?

Lees

From within the thread

 

[Eleanor]

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
I have been studying this verse for quite a while.
Commentaries vary on the interpretation.
My assumption is that the Master who bought them is the Lord and the people in the verse are false prophets/teachers. (apostates/false christians?)
Anyhow I am trying to wrap my head around this and struggling with it.
I understand it but I do not.
Grace and peace to you.

"Bought" is redemption language.

To redeem from slavery, was to buy a slave by paying his market value and setting him free.

To redeem from eternal damnation is to buy a sinner by paying his debt (the cross) for sin, thereby setting him free from damnation (through faith).

 

[Arial]

Concerning (Lev. 17) I have always said the Blood of Christ is the price paid. It is the basis for our salvation. Of course it is effectual. But, is it effectual to the man who doesn't obey concerning it? (Lev. 17:4) " And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle...to offer an offering unto the LORD...that man shall be cut off from among his people." Also (Lev. 17:9) Note in (Lev. 16:34). "And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year...." Did that blood apply to the Israelite who did not believe? The Israel that is not Israel? (Rom. 9:6) It was for the whole nation of Israel, yet not all in Israel were saved. Why?

The death of Christ is not the "basis" of our salvation. His perfect righteous life, his death (shed blood), his resurrection, and his ascension IS what saves. His work on earth was done. Mission accomplished.That is why he is the Savior. The sacrifices in the OT were never intended to save unto eternal life, and they never did. They were a stay of execution and judgement, until the real, the Christ, came. Faith saved those who God gave it to (also for his purposes), even as it does now. Faith in God----not faith in the sacrifice. So again you are conflating two things. The purpose of the OT sacrifices with the purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

You missed the point of my bringing that up. So let me reword the question and try not to deflect into another topic as your support. Did the blood of the ram or bull do exactly what it was intended to do as to its purpose, when it was shed? Or later when and if an Israelite had faith?

An aside: The OT saints were among the elect also.

 

[Lees]

Or is it you?

That would be a strange statement if had ever said any such thing. I said magical blood----which it would be if it did nothing when it was shed but only became something when someone activated faith. Meaning, our faith gives it its power to save. Perhaps your view stems from over literalization? By not recognizing that when it says his shed blood for atonement of the sins of many, it refers to his death?

Yes. It is how he purchased me. I was purchased before the foundation of the world. I always belonged to God. There was no question from his view that he would lead me to Christ.

I did not exercise faith in Christ. God gave me to Christ. God the Holy Spirit did this in me and for me by regeneration. With it came believing (faith) in the person and work of Christ. One cannot believe what they do not or cannot hear. That is when God placed me in Christ. Christ had already done the work of shedding his blood on the cross. He had already paid my debt. He did not have to shed his blood again, and me and my faith are not what gave it that power to save me.

I was a wandering sheep, dead in my trespasses and sin, who needed to be brought into the fold, but I was always one of his sheep. I was never a goat who was transformed into a sheep by faith. At just the right time, God opened my ears to hear the voice of the Shepherd and I recognized his voice and followed him. He knew me, long before I knew him. (John 10) He had already done the work necessary by shedding his blood, and rising again from the dead, and ascending back to the Father. Don't make the mistake of arriving at off the mark doctrinal beliefs by putting God and his work for salvation within our time constraints by saying things like faith is what gives saving power to the blood. (Paraphrase.)

If it didn't save me when I was lost, how could it save me when I am found?

Do you not see how that statement puts the death of Jesus of no value until a person gives it power by believing? It is actually what Christian Science teaches, though they go even farther off base than you in saying he could not and did not save anyone. What they say, and this is a quote from one of the writings of the founder of CS, "There was no more power in the blood of Jesus to save, when he shed it on the cross than when it ran through his veins." So be careful. Don't try to talk about two things at once by conflating them as one thing. (The blood, (Christ's death) and faith.) And that is what you do when you claim that blood is just blood until faith comes along and gives it saving power.

If Christ only died for the elect, (Calvinism) why do you continue to claim that he died for all?

How is it me when you say context says otherwise?

No. Your use of magical is a strange statement. Whether it be 'magical blood' or 'magical faith'. Both are of God. Is faith 'magical'? Our faith is necessary to apply the Blood of Christ. If faith is absent, the Blood saves none.

Yes, I know it is how He purchased you. The price was paid before the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13;8) Something you take as literal. Of course there was no question that God would lead you to Christ. But until you exercised faith, you were lost. You were without God. The Blood had been shed, but until you exercised faith, the Blood didn't save you. Exercising faith is not Christ shedding His Blood again. So, according to you faith is not needed to be saved. According to you, you are saved and didn't need to exercise faith.

Being one of Christ's sheep pertains to election. It didn't make you saved before you exercised faith.

When you were lost, you were not saved. You, who talk of logic, should recognize that. The Blood certainly is able to save. But not until you exercise faith. The Blood is able to save you when you are found, because when you are found you have exercised faith.

Don't try and label me as Christian Science. And i don't say Christ's Blood is just blood. I have said, which you apparently forget, that Christ's Blood is the basis for our salvation.

Did I say Christ died only for the elect?

Lees

 

[Lees]

The death of Christ is not the "basis" of our salvation. His perfect righteous life, his death (shed blood), his resurrection, and his ascension IS what saves. His work on earth was done. Mission accomplished.That is why he is the Savior. The sacrifices in the OT were never intended to save unto eternal life, and they never did. They were a stay of execution and judgement, until the real, the Christ, came. Faith saved those who God gave it to (also for his purposes), even as it does now. Faith in God----not faith in the sacrifice. So again you are conflating two things. The purpose of the OT sacrifices with the purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

You missed the point of my bringing that up. So let me reword the question and try not to deflect into another topic as your support. Did the blood of the ram or bull do exactly what it was intended to do as to its purpose, when it was shed? Or later when and if an Israelite had faith?

An aside: The OT saints were among the elect also.

Gee, you just told me you were saved from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8) Which is when in the mind of God, Christ was slain. Now you tell me the death of Christ is not the basis for our salvation.

You brought up the Old Testament sacrifices. Now you argue against them. Why? Because you avoid my question. So go back to my post #(104). I quoted (Lev. 16:34). The blood of the atoning sacrifice was made for Israel for one year...every year. And it atoned for all of Israel. Did that mean everyone in Israel were saved? No. why? Because not all Israel are Israel. (Rom. 9:6) You see? Probably not. The blood was shed but not all were saved though it was for all.

Concerning the Old Testament saints being elect, I have never said otherwise.

Lees

 

[Lees]

From within the thread

Ok.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Try making your argument with what the blood represents----the death of Christ in our place---instead of the word "blood", and see what you come up with.

I don't see it. Perhaps you could explain instead of just 'saying it'.

Lees

 

[Arial]

How is it me when you say context says otherwise?

Well, how is it me when context says otherwise?

No. Your use of magical is a strange statement. Whether it be 'magical blood' or 'magical faith'. Both are of God. Is faith 'magical'? Our faith is necessary to apply the Blood of Christ. If faith is absent, the Blood saves none.

The faith that God gives us applies the WORK of Christ to us. Was his work powerless without our faith? Do we have and add the activating potion to the pot?

But until you exercised faith, you were lost. You were without God. The Blood had been shed, but until you exercised faith, the Blood didn't save you. Exercising faith is not Christ shedding His Blood again. So, according to you faith is not needed to be saved. According to you, you are saved and didn't need to exercise faith.

I give up! You listen, but you do not hear. In leaving let me say, trying to have a discussion with you has been a most unpleasant, and unprofitable, experience.

 

[Arial]

Gee, you just told me you were saved from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8) Which is when in the mind of God, Christ was slain. Now you tell me the death of Christ is not the basis for our salvation.

I wasn't referring to Rev 13:8 I was referring to Eph 1:3-6. And yes, I take both passages literally in the economy of God who never is bound by the constraints of time but sees all, knows all, is everywhere all at once. That is the way in which both Paul and John were speaking. Obviously.

I have had it with contemptuous misrepresenting of what I say.

You brought up the Old Testament sacrifices. Now you argue against them. Why? Because you avoid my question. So go back to my post #(104). I quoted (Lev. 16:34). The blood of the atoning sacrifice was made for Israel for one year...every year. And it atoned for all of Israel. Did that mean everyone in Israel were saved? No. why? Because not all Israel are Israel. (Rom. 9:6) You see? Probably not. The blood was shed but not all were saved though it was for all.

If you would actually hear what I said, you would not simply repeat what you said that I responded to. And you did not answer the question. And you have still missed the point. It would seem that you have only one manner of processing ideas, and that is the right way, always, and it has become impossible to escape from that box. I am also fed up with that.

 

[Arial]

I don't see it. Perhaps you could explain instead of just 'saying it'.

Lees

I will get to it later. I need to go back and pick up your quotes and insert "the death of Jesus on the cross" everywhere you say "blood". Or you could do that yourself. I feel quite certain you did not. I didn't just say anything. I suggested that you do something. Which you didn't do but answered "I don't see it." anyway.

 

[Arial]

Being one of Christ's sheep pertains to election. It didn't make you saved before you exercised faith.

I never said it did. That does not mean that Jesus' death did nothing until I came to faith. He laid down his life for his sheep. You have a synergistic salvation whether you realize it or not. And it is man centered, not God centered.

Exercising faith is not Christ shedding His Blood again. So, according to you faith is not needed to be saved. According to you, you are saved and didn't need to exercise faith.

Stop conflating two things that are distinct!! And stop misrepresenting me by saying according to me faith is not needed. It is a rule violation and you know I have never said any such thing. And it is in effect, no matter how much it is denied, if his blood is powerless without the addition of a persons faith, then it must be shed again when they come to faith, or else faith is the magical ingredient that empowers the blood.

When you were lost, you were not saved. You, who talk of logic, should recognize that. The Blood certainly is able to save. But not until you exercise faith. The Blood is able to save you when you are found, because when you are found you have exercised faith.

Jesus does not need me or anyone else in order for his blood to save. Stop conflating two things that are distinct. One thing is the work of Christ and the power and purpose of it. The other thing is how that work and power are appropriated. ANd all of it was from before the foundation of the world and from God.

Don't try and label me as Christian Science. And i don't say Christ's Blood is just blood. I have said, which you apparently forget, that Christ's Blood is the basis for our salvation.

Another complete misrepresentation of what I said., But nice deflection.

I think you are using "basis" as something that makes something else a possibility. Christ's person and work are what makes salvation possible and certain for the elect, not a possibility. Our faith is just as much a certainty and a given as is his person and work certain to do what he sets out to do.