2 Peter 2:1 Master who bought them

[Hazelelponi]

I am not finding it in Grudems book.

What page numbers? I will copy and paste in this thread.

Is it this book?

SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
• An Introduction to Bible Doctrine •
Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.

Yes that's it.

Theres two editions and I have the first edition and the page numbers are 599 and page 600. chapter 27, the atonement.

Last paragraph of page 599 and first paragraph of page,600.; print edition, hardcover.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm not interested in your notion or definition that is not based upon Scripture.

Lees

Oh stop. He quoted your post and asked you a clear question regarding your post.

You ought to be able to answer a question about the things your saying, if you can't answer I'm sure that's fine but there's no need to be disingenuous. Just say you can't answer.

The question was regarding your post. Not someone else's.

 

[makesends]

I'm not interested in your notion or definition that is not based upon Scripture.

Lees

It wasn't MY notion, but the view of those who insist on self-determination.

"Reprobation" is a biblical principle. If you like, open a thread on the defeat of the Reprobation as a Biblical Principle. You could reference Romans 9 for starters.

 

[Lees]

It wasn't MY notion, but the view of those who insist on self-determination.

"Reprobation" is a biblical principle. If you like, open a thread on the defeat of the Reprobation as a Biblical Principle. You could reference Romans 9 for starters.

Yes, 'reprobation' is a Biblical principle. Which is why I asked what Scripture you are referring to? In other words, why choose the word 'reprobate' in your question?

No, I'm not interested in starting a thread on the defeat of 'Reprobation' as a Biblical principle. Feel free to do so. I will participate.

Sorry, I don't see the reprobate in (Rom. 9). Perhaps I missed it.

Lees

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Yes, 'reprobation' is a Biblical principle. Which is why I asked what Scripture you are referring to? In other words, why choose the word 'reprobate' in your question?

No, I'm not interested in starting a thread on the defeat of 'Reprobation' as a Biblical principle. Feel free to do so. I will participate.

Sorry, I don't see the reprobate in (Rom. 9). Perhaps I missed it.

Lees

I'm not interested in starting a thread on the defeat of 'Reprobation' as a Biblical principle. Feel free to do so. I will participate.

Interesting, yet you will participate.

 

[Tambora]

I do no believe He paid for the sins of every human who ever lived.

Many use the the Biblical word "all and "world" to justify their theology that He died for everyone, but this is not so.

Many use those words because there are many verses in scripture that use those exact words.
Scripture also goes on to say that there will be some that will fall away, be broken off, blotted out of the book of life, and who will not stay loyal to the merciful Master that bought and freed them but will return to their slop and pick another master to serve, thus denying the Master that bought and freed them.
We see this scenario happen again and again throughout scripture.

 

[makesends]

Many use those words because there are many verses in scripture that use those exact words.
Scripture also goes on to say that there will be some that will fall away, be broken off, blotted out of the book of life, and who will not stay loyal to the merciful Master that bought and freed them but will return to their slop and pick another master to serve, thus denying the Master that bought and freed them.
We see this scenario happen again and again throughout scripture.

Do you, then, believe that Christ ACTUALLY paid the penalty owed by those who themselves eventually must pay it also?

What do you think is meant by the many descriptions of perdition? What happens to those who were never 'born again'?

 

[Carbon]

Do you, then, believe that Christ ACTUALLY paid the penalty owed by those who themselves eventually must pay it also?

I sure hope not!

 

[Mr GLee]

Many use those words because there are many verses in scripture that use those exact words.
Scripture also goes on to say that there will be some that will fall away, be broken off, blotted out of the book of life, and who will not stay loyal to the merciful Master that bought and freed them but will return to their slop and pick another master to serve, thus denying the Master that bought and freed them.
We see this scenario happen again and again throughout scripture.

Exact words in the exact way?

It would seem "two" is the word designed to represent one God as Christ has spoken.

The #1 "let there be" #2 a "God alone good outcome". Law of faith believing God not seen

The witness of two. The Holy father with the son.

Christ Husband with wife established on Mount Siniah.

Christ with his hand hewn out two stone tablets written with his finger on both sides with no room for oral carnal traditions establishing sola scriptura.

Coming down Christ moved Moses to destroy the first set of the letter of the law etched in stone described as death .

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Death)

Then to represent the New Testament this time commanded Moses to hewn out two tablets and the again with his fingerer he wrote on both sides.

Two books . One to represent the name of every person born, the other to represent those born again of Christ. The Lamb slain from the foundation the six days the Holy Father did work. demonstrated at the cross as the work of two (father and Son) much later.

When the two books are opened on the last day and the two are compared. The names in lamb book of life will be in both books. The other not found in neither book. . . . . . . like they were never born in the first place

 

[Tambora]

Do you, then, believe that Christ ACTUALLY paid the penalty

Ransom, not penalty.

owed by those who themselves eventually must pay it also?

Why must they pay a ransom (not penalty) for themselves that has already been paid?

What do you think is meant by the many descriptions of perdition? What happens to those who were never 'born again'?

I think the many descriptions of perdition is the state of those that deny the Master that bought them.
I think born again is the state of those resurrected from corruptible to incorruptible, which will only happen to those that do not deny the Master that bought them.


2 Peter 2 starts with those who deny the Master that bought them, then tells of their rebellious ways, and then ends with:

2 Peter 2
(20) For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(21) For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
(22) What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Do you, then, believe that Christ ACTUALLY paid the penalty

Ransom, not penalty.

Are you saying he paid the ransom for the reprobate, but the penalty for the elect?

Or are you saying he didn't pay the penalty for any?

What are you saying?

 

[Arial]

Ransom, not penalty.

ransom /răn′səm/

noun​

1. The release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price.
2. The price or payment demanded or paid for such release.
3. A redemption from sin and its consequences.

Why must they pay a ransom (not penalty) for themselves that has already been paid?

The unsaved do not pay a ransom, they go to hell and face the wrath of God. (Penalty.) If Jesus was a ransom for everyone then he paid the penalty for everyone. In which case, the unbeliever pays also. Which would mean double payment (satisfaction) or the failure of Christ's shed blood to accomplish its purpose.

 

[Tambora]

The unsaved do not pay a ransom,

Neither do the saved.
Christ paid the ransom, not us.

 

[makesends]

Arial said, (and this is quoted out of context):
The unsaved do not pay a ransom,

Neither do the saved.
Christ paid the ransom, not us.

shifting the goalposts

Do you not follow @Arial 's point?

 

[Tambora]

Arial said, (and this is quoted out of context):
The unsaved do not pay a ransom,

shifting the goalposts

Do you not follow @Arial 's point?

Christ paid for all.
But some will deny the Master that bought them, will fall away, will be cut off for no longer believing, will not stand firm till the end, will trade the truth for a lie, will seek other gods, etc.
Those that do not deny the Master that bought them will receive eternal life, and those that do deny the Master that bought them will not receive eternal life.

Just as 2 Peter 2 tells us:

2 Peter 2
(20) For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(21) For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
(22) What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

 

[makesends]

Christ paid for all.
But some will deny the Master that bought them, will fall away, will be cut off for no longer believing, will not stand firm till the end, will trade the truth for a lie, will seek other gods, etc.
Those that do not deny the Master that bought them will receive eternal life, and those that do deny the Master that bought them will not receive eternal life.

Just as 2 Peter 2 tells us:

2 Peter 2
(20) For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(21) For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
(22) What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

Non-answer. You have left the issue at hand.

But, I'm glad at least that you admit to "payment" and not just ransom.

Edit: oops, my bad. What you did not admit to was "penalty".

 

[Mr GLee]

Christ paid for all.
But some will deny the Master that bought them, will fall away, will be cut off for no longer believing, will not stand firm till the end, will trade the truth for a lie, will seek other gods, etc.

They were no of us they went out.

They crucified the Lord of Glory over and over to public shame as if one promised demonstration of the lamb slain from the foundation the six days the Father did work fall short of their approval.

One too many a thousand not enough.

 

[Arial]

Neither do the saved.
Christ paid the ransom, not us.

Right. If you will notice, that is what I was saying. The question was concerning if Jesus paid the ransom for all without exception and whether or not ransom is a penalty paid in the stead of another.

 

[Tambora]

Right.

I know.

If you will notice, that is what I was saying.

Then we agree.

The question was concerning if Jesus paid the ransom for all without exception

How many times does scripture have to say that Christ paid for all until you believe it?

and whether or not ransom is a penalty paid in the stead of another.

When one master pays a price to purchase a slave from another master, they are not paying a penalty for the slave.
Nor does it guarantee that the purchased one will be loyal to the one that bought them.

 

[Arial]

Then we agree.

We do not agree because we do not agree on the meaning of ransom when applied to the person and work of Jesus. We only agree according to the letter (as in letter of the law) that Jesus paid a ransom for the believer. However, hugs back at ya.

How many times does scripture have to say that Christ paid for all until you believe it?

Give me the scripture quote and I will do my best to give an exegesis of it consistent with the rules of hermeneutics.

When one master pays a price to purchase a slave from another master, they are not paying a penalty for the slave.
Nor does it guarantee that the purchased one will be loyal to the one that bought them.

It is also not a ransom. The person is still a slave. Now if someone purchased him out of slavery, that could be considered a purchase, but not a ransom that had a penalty attached. A ransom (one person substituting himself for another) would be if the slave had done something that deserved forty lashes, and someone stepped in and said give me the forty lashes instead.

I am thinking that the issue here is not fully understanding the doctrine of justification. I am not saying it is not understood at all, just not fully. And I say that because in my experience, it is usually not taught in a way that looks behind the scene, so to speak, or at all, outside of Reformed/Calvinism. Rather than go into it here, I will start a thread on justification, and you can read it to see what I mean, or not. Just please, don't take offense at those words, because I meant no offense. Just speaking from experience.