2 Peter 2:1 Master who bought them

[brightfame52]

@Arial

The faith that God gives us applies the WORK of Christ to us.

I believe the Spirit of God applies the saving effects of Christs Death to the elect, and along with that work of Hs Faith is given, for Faith is the fruit of the Spirit Gal 5:22 and 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

 

[Lees]

Well, how is it me when context says otherwise?

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?

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.

Because it was my context.

And the shedding of Christ's Blood was very much the WORK of God and Christ.

(Rom. 3:25) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

Lees

 

[Lees]

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.

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.

(Eph. 1:3-6) is, again, about our election. "chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" It is not when you were saved. Though God sees all and knows all doesn't mean you were always saved.

(Lev. 16:33-34) "And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 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. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses."

(Rom. 9:6) "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

Though the atoning blood was shed for all Israel, the one not of Israel, would not be saved. No faith there. Of course the atoning blood did what it was meant to do. But it did not save anyone who was not of believing Israel. Did it?

Lees

 

[Lees]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I asked you if you were saved in about 33 A.D. when Christ died, before you exercised faith. You said yes. Post #(108).

Christ's Blood is not powerless just because one does not believe. It is powerless to save one who does not believe. Correct?

Well, yes I am using 'basis' for that. The Blood of Christ shed is the basis for our salvation. The Blood of Christ shed makes our salvation possible. And our faith is what applies that Blood, that salvation to us.

Our faith being a certainity changes nothing to what I have said.

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

I asked you if you were saved in about 33 A.D. when Christ died, before you exercised faith. You said yes. Post #(108).

Christ's Blood is not powerless just because one does not believe. It is powerless to save one who does not believe. Correct?

Well, yes I am using 'basis' for that. The Blood of Christ shed is the basis for our salvation. The Blood of Christ shed makes our salvation possible. And our faith is what applies that Blood, that salvation to us.

Our faith being a certainity changes nothing to what I have said.

Lees

Blood like water no difference. Things that can be poured out are used to represent the invisible work of the Holy Spirit pouring out His Holy Spirit life as if it was water or blood pouring his labor of love on dying mankind, working in believers giving his own Spirit life in jeopardy of his own Holy Spirit. Called in a several parables the figurative prophecy "drink the blood eat the flesh".

In that way he gives us little of his faithful powerful Spirit life and calls us those of little faith or power .More than enough to please him who works in us.

When the apostles felt weak, they would pray "increase the power of new born again faith. (Not of the apostle's own dying self)

Another of without parables Christ spoke not. It would seem today more attention is given over to sign to wonder, wonder, wonder, marvel after doctrines as a form of false prophecy.

I would think dig in seek the hidden things of faith as it is written (sola scriptura) why trust lying wonders?

David imprisoned God sent a theist for hearing the gospel to help strengthen and encourage. Similar to John the Baptist when in prisoned Christ sent him a glass of cold water.

Many metaphors used in that parable other than water and blood the represent the unseen Holy Spirit. Christ in us.

Well of Bethlehem, City of bread to represent flesh

By the gate, East to represent Christ, the deep-water Christ spoke of the women by the well . Living water to represent living Spirit life

blood of these men. . work of three men

Three mightiest.. . .three throughout the bible denotes "the end of a matter" .. . . . . . .strike three

1 Chronicles 11:18-20And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord.And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.

Water to wine same as water to blood. . . the gospel

 

[Arial]

(Eph. 1:3-6) is, again, about our election. "chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" It is not when you were saved. Though God sees all and knows all doesn't mean you were always saved.

(Lev. 16:33-34) "And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 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. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses."

(Rom. 9:6) "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

Though the atoning blood was shed for all Israel, the one not of Israel, would not be saved. No faith there. Of course the atoning blood did what it was meant to do. But it did not save anyone who was not of believing Israel. Did it?

Lees

You already said all of this----several times.

 

[Arial]

You brought up the Old Testament sacrifices. Now you argue against them.

I am not arguing against them. Is the apparent comprehension problem real or deliberate? I brought them up to ask you a question, which you still have not answered. You simply took the Lev passage off in a different direction to a different subject. One that if addressed would turn the conversation in a different direction before adequately dealing with the issue we are dealing with.

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.

It takes a lot of nerve to accuse someone of not answering questions when they do not answer questions. See above. This was my question and the context from which it came.

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.

You simply brought up another topic that would result in moving on before the current issue is resolved. The subject is your claim that Christ's death on the cross (shed blood) saved no one until a someone exercises saving faith. Exercising faith and the work of Jesus on the cross are two separate doctrines and you have arrived at a doctrine that conflates them. In doing that you have come up with an atrocious doctrine concerning the person and work of Christ. You keep trying to argue you position with this conflation which is why we are getting nowhere.

 

[Arial]

I asked you if you were saved in about 33 A.D. when Christ died, before you exercised faith. You said yes. Post #(108).

In God's economy as eternal. He knows all, sees all, ordains all, hears all, is everywhere always. He enters into our boundary of time, the boundary he set for us, historically and actively to redeem and that we might know him. It is God who through Paul tells us in Eph that we were elect and predestined to come to Christ before the foundation of the world. The doctrine of Christ (Christology) and soteriology are distinct doctrines, concerning specific things. Stop treating them as one and the same. Make your Christology accurate first. Then move on to the nature and means of salvation concerning mankind. And you cannot get the Christology biblically sound until you get the Doctrine of God sound.

Christ's Blood is not powerless just because one does not believe. It is powerless to save one who does not believe. Correct?

It cannot be both powerful and powerless at the same time. It is not powerless to save one who does not believe. It was not intended to save one who does not believe, but to condemn them.

Well, yes I am using 'basis' for that. The Blood of Christ shed is the basis for our salvation. The Blood of Christ shed makes our salvation possible. And our faith is what applies that Blood, that salvation to us.

That negates the "possible" by using it as a possibility. It makes our salvation possible because it does the work of defeating and conquering sin and death. You use "possible" as meaning "possibility" because you say it is only effectual when our faith is applied to it. The "possible" of his person and work the becomes dependent entirely upon human creatures.

Our faith being a certainity changes nothing to what I have said.

It is the conflation of two distinct doctrines that undermines the person and work of Christ. It so distorted it as to lock you into an unmovable position that you cannot see around. So get that straight instead of just repeating yourself. Think about what I have said instead of just dismissing it. Because no matter how many times you repeat your position, it will not come true.

 

[Arial]

@Lees
Questions not answered:

Was his work powerless without our faith? Do we have and add the activating potion to the pot?

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

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.

 

[Arial]

@ Lees

Example of the distinctness of Soteriology and Christology.

How the work of Christ is applied to us in time and space:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through fiat. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,---

John 3:3 Jesus answered him and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 5-7 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'"

John 1: 11-13 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to those who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 10:14-21

This all takes place historically, in the created world, and it does so because of the Christology behind it. It pertains to, follows after, is because of, Christ's already accomplishment on the cross for the elect. You know at least the surface of what he did, if not the internal accomplishment of atonement (I do not know if you know that or not, and it is a different topic.) So rather than quote a plethora of scriptures, it can be summed up with Christ's announcement on the cross as he breathed his last. "It is finished." Something that is finished as done what it came to do and does not need another thing added to it to be what it is. Not works and not faith. Faith applies to a human. Accomplishment applies to Jesus. Distinction.

 

[Arial]

Though the atoning blood was shed for all Israel, the one not of Israel, would not be saved. No faith there. Of course the atoning blood did what it was meant to do. But it did not save anyone who was not of believing Israel. Did it?

As I said, the atoning blood of bulls and rams never saved anyone unto eternal life---it never gave faith---because it could not change the heart of any man. It was a stay of execution til Christ would come through Israel. Year by year. That is not my point. It is a different topic.

Irregardless of what the blood of rams and bulls was intended to do, you acknowledge that it did so when it was shed. Now answer the second half of my question. Did the blood of Jesus do what it was intended to do when it was shed? If the answer is yes, then it's power is not powerless, awaiting the actions of humans to attain its active power. It had a twofold power then and still has the same two fold power now and through all the age. The power to rescue from the kingdom of darkness those it was shed for, through faith in that very work and person. And the power to condemn those who do not believe.

 

[Arial]

Because it was my context.

I did not deny the context or ignore it. I pointed out, without the distraction of the context, that even with it, you were making two contradictory statements. I also made that clear.

And the shedding of Christ's Blood was very much the WORK of God and Christ.

Not my point.

(Rom. 3:25) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

Propitiation is a satisfaction made. It is applied to a person through faith. Two distinct but compatible doctrines. Your theory which runs them together without distinction has a satisfaction made but not actually made, at the same time. Then giving the power to faith (which is not a power) or the lack of faith, of a human as the determining factor as to whether it was an actual satisfaction or not.

Pretty much enough said.

 

[brightfame52]

@Lees

The Blood of Christ shed makes our salvation possible. And our faith is what applies that Blood, that salvation to us.

Another Christ dishonoring statement, saying again, the blood doesnt save, just makes saving possible.. Also its the Spirit that applies the blood of Christ, then Faith is a fruit of His work 1 Pet 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

You taking the honor away from the Spirit of Christ, in application, and giving it to man.

 

[Lees]

You already said all of this----several times.

Which means what? That you are not listening? Or that you keep repeating yourself...several times?

I am not arguing against them. Is the apparent comprehension problem real or deliberate? I brought them up to ask you a question, which you still have not answered. You simply took the Lev passage off in a different direction to a different subject. One that if addressed would turn the conversation in a different direction before adequately dealing with the issue we are dealing with.

It takes a lot of nerve to accuse someone of not answering questions when they do not answer questions. See above. This was my question and the context from which it came.

You simply brought up another topic that would result in moving on before the current issue is resolved. The subject is your claim that Christ's death on the cross (shed blood) saved no one until a someone exercises saving faith. Exercising faith and the work of Jesus on the cross are two separate doctrines and you have arrived at a doctrine that conflates them. In doing that you have come up with an atrocious doctrine concerning the person and work of Christ. You keep trying to argue you position with this conflation which is why we are getting nowhere.

You say I said this several times. Guess what? You go to a past post, my post #(114), and respond 'again' to that . Then you wonder why I say things several times.

I don't see any comprehension problem. Is there one because 'you' say so?

I didn't bring up another topic. I addressed your Old Testament reference in (Leviticus). See post #(104) and (114).

I see no such 'conflation' that you speak of. I have supported my doctrine with Scripture. That which you present is not supported in Scripture. Before you get all angry and upity about that statement, just look at your own to me. "you have come up with an atrocious doctrine'.

I'm not trying to get 'anywhere'. I am confortable where I am.

Lees

 

[Eleanor]

@Lees

Another Christ dishonoring statement, saying again, the blood doesnt save, just makes saving possible.

The blood saves through the gift of saving faith. . .no saving faith = no salvation.

Also its the Spirit that applies the blood of Christ, then Faith is a fruit of His work 1 Pet 1:2

Yes, faith is a gift (Php 1:29), as is the sovereign (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) rebirth (Jn 3:3-5).

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

You taking the honor away from the Spirit of Christ, in application, and giving it to man.

 

[Arial]

You say I said this several times. Guess what? You go to a past post, my post #(114), and respond 'again' to that . Then you wonder why I say things several times.

But I did not say the same thing as I said before "again" did I? So what is your point? Why not address the post as given? It is also possible that I did not realize I had previously responded to it. Since I have been accused several times of not responding to it or answering the question in it. That is not why you repeat yourself. You repeat yourself because no matter what I say or how I say it, you simply respond with the very same thing you said that brought about my response.

I don't see any comprehension problem. Is there one because 'you' say so?

There seems to be a comprehension problem because you represent what I say completely other than what I did say. Misrepresenting what I said. I point it out every time you do it and you do not seem to comprehend that either. Of course the other option is that you just don't give a hoot about anything I say, since I disagree with you. And yet you keep on "talking" at me.

I didn't bring up another topic. I addressed your Old Testament reference in (Leviticus). See post #(104) and (114).

The topic changed when you failed to comprehends the point I was making and made it about something else. Comprende? If you did grasp my point then what followed in response was nothing more than deliberate deflection to whatever you wanted to espouse.

I see no such 'conflation' that you speak of. I have supported my doctrine with Scripture.

That is a sad fact that you don't see it. That does not mean it is not the case. I practically drew a picture for crying out loud. No comprende or pretense of no comprende? You have refuted your doctrine with scripture is what you have done. You do not understand the scriptures you use as to their meaning. You give them your meaning and are not open to considering that it may be incorrect.

That which you present is not supported in Scripture. Before you get all angry and upity about that statement, just look at your own to me. "you have come up with an atrocious doctrine'.

I supported it directly out of Scripture. But of course if one has no distinct and biblically sound Christology and no distinct biblically sound sorteriology, they would not recognize that.

Saying "The blood of Christ did not have the power to save anyone until a fallen sinner adds their faith to it." is an atrocious doctrine.

Since you posted an entire post that was nothing but about the poster, and I felt compelled to clarify position, we now have two posts about nothing but the poster. So the next one you present, instead of responding to it, I will delete and apply warning points. Comprende?

 

[Lees]

In God's economy as eternal. He knows all, sees all, ordains all, hears all, is everywhere always. He enters into our boundary of time, the boundary he set for us, historically and actively to redeem and that we might know him. It is God who through Paul tells us in Eph that we were elect and predestined to come to Christ before the foundation of the world. The doctrine of Christ (Christology) and soteriology are distinct doctrines, concerning specific things. Stop treating them as one and the same. Make your Christology accurate first. Then move on to the nature and means of salvation concerning mankind. And you cannot get the Christology biblically sound until you get the Doctrine of God sound.

It cannot be both powerful and powerless at the same time. It is not powerless to save one who does not believe. It was not intended to save one who does not believe, but to condemn them.

That negates the "possible" by using it as a possibility. It makes our salvation possible because it does the work of defeating and conquering sin and death. You use "possible" as meaning "possibility" because you say it is only effectual when our faith is applied to it. The "possible" of his person and work the becomes dependent entirely upon human creatures.

It is the conflation of two distinct doctrines that undermines the person and work of Christ. It so distorted it as to lock you into an unmovable position that you cannot see around. So get that straight instead of just repeating yourself. Think about what I have said instead of just dismissing it. Because no matter how many times you repeat your position, it will not come true.

Nice speech. In other words, you did say you were saved before faith, but then claimed you didn't say it. See post #(108) (113) (120). Nice attempt to cover it up.

Again, just because God knows all and sees all doesn't mean you are saved before you exercise faith. You seem to be repeating yourself....again.

The Blood of Christ is the price for sin. It's purpose is to save, not condemn. It is applied to those who exercise faith. Those who do not exercise faith are condemned because they reject Christ. Becasue they don't believe. (John 3:18) "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The blood of Christ is able to save all, because it was shed for all. (1 John 2:2) "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

No conflation. No distortion. I know what you are saying. And the same is true for you. You can repeat this mantra of yours, but Scripture doesn't change.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Lees
Questions not answered:

All of these were answered.

As I said, the atoning blood of bulls and rams never saved anyone unto eternal life---it never gave faith---because it could not change the heart of any man. It was a stay of execution til Christ would come through Israel. Year by year. That is not my point. It is a different topic.

Irregardless of what the blood of rams and bulls was intended to do, you acknowledge that it did so when it was shed. Now answer the second half of my question. Did the blood of Jesus do what it was intended to do when it was shed? If the answer is yes, then it's power is not powerless, awaiting the actions of humans to attain its active power. It had a twofold power then and still has the same two fold power now and through all the age. The power to rescue from the kingdom of darkness those it was shed for, through faith in that very work and person. And the power to condemn those who do not believe.

Faith was necessary for any Israelite bringing a sacrifice. And it would lead to eternal life. Neither did the Blood of Christ save anyone without faith. It alone didn't produce faith.

You brought up the blood of rams and bulls. You asked me did their blood do what was intended. Post #(112) And I answered. Post #(114) (123).

Yes, the Blood of Jesus did what it was intended. It paid the price for sin. But it cannot be applied without faith.

Before you exercised faith you were lost, thoug His Blood was shed. Before you exercised faith, you were not saved.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I did not deny the context or ignore it. I pointed out, without the distraction of the context, that even with it, you were making two contradictory statements. I also made that clear.

Not my point.

Propitiation is a satisfaction made. It is applied to a person through faith. Two distinct but compatible doctrines. Your theory which runs them together without distinction has a satisfaction made but not actually made, at the same time. Then giving the power to faith (which is not a power) or the lack of faith, of a human as the determining factor as to whether it was an actual satisfaction or not.

Pretty much enough said.

If you want to pick a sentence here and there you can make them say anything. So, context is now a distraction with you?

Yes, I know. That is my point.

Really? Two distinct doctrines? Yet both involve the redeemed. (Rom. 3:24-25) "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Without the faith, there is no redemption. No propitiation. No salvation. Without faith, the Blood of Christ does not save.

Lees

 

[Arial]

All of these were answered.

No they were not. If they were direct me to those answers.

Faith was necessary for any Israelite bringing a sacrifice. And it would lead to eternal life.

The sacrificial system was a command, a stipulation of the covenant agreement. Faith or no faith, it was to be done.

If it would lead to eternal life, why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary.? Why does Hebrews say the blood of rams and bulls saved (Changed the conscience) (heart) of no one?

Yes, the Blood of Jesus did what it was intended. It paid the price for sin. But it cannot be applied without faith.

Paid the price for whose sin? If it paid the price for all sin, then the price for all sin is paid for. No secondary application needed.

Before you exercised faith you were lost, thoug His Blood was shed. Before you exercised faith, you were not saved.

I have already dealt with that? Why do you bring it up again? And again? And again?

Without the faith, there is no redemption. No propitiation. No salvation. Without faith, the Blood of Christ does not save.

Who made the propitiation? Who Redeemed? Who saves? Who gives faith? Who is faith given to? When was it determined that it would be given to those it is given to? Did the shed of blood save when it was shed or did it sit powerless and idol awaiting the actions of men? Jesus shedding his blood on the cross was doing something with God and within the Godhead, in relation to mankind. It was not just man centered. What was that?