PSA: What is Implied in Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die?

[ReverendRV]

God required that all sins be paid for before one can accept God's offer of salvation. Once the sins are paid for, mankind is qualified to be the recipient of God's grace. If Christ did not pay for the sins of mankind, mankind is still not eternally condemned, eternal condemnation is the result of not putting one's faith in God's offer of salvation.

God has placed mankind in a state of disobedience so he could have mercy on them ALL.

Adam wasn't Saved at the Protoevangelium before he was Redeemed on the Cross?

 

[ReverendRV]

I am tired of answering the same questions over and over.

Fair enough...

Lurkers, pay notice...

 

[EddieM]

Our own sins are incurred by us, not imputed to us.

The sins incurred by the believer are imputed to Christ.

Thank you for getting it right.

 

[Arial]

Literal interpretation does limit your translational options. Just read all the posts on the word redeemed if you dont believe me (where I am misquoted on many occasions, and Arial and others have told the members here that I hold to positions that I do not hold to.)

Keep your posts about the topic and not about persons. If someone has misquoted you---show the misquote and what you really said. Don't make accusations against someone unless you are prepared to verify the accusation. Also, address the post you are quoting and don't sidestep it with irrelevant material . "Translational options" in no way applies to the claims of what was responded to.

Yes all serious bible students hold to some presuppositions, once again I never said I was immune to them. But I will admit that Literal interpretation limits tranlsational options, whereas symbolism method and metaphorical method, and allegorical method have a wide range of translational options..

The conversation is not about translational options between symbolism, metaphorical, allegorical, literal. It is about whether the Reformed interpretation of 2Peter 2:1 specifically is not interpreting the passage literally simply because it does not give the same literal interpretation that you give.

 

[Arial]

I am only going to comment briefly on this first paragraph. {Edit by admin for violation of rule #2.1 and 2.3}

Literal interpretation does limit your translational options. Just read all the posts on the word redeemed if you dont believe me (where I am misquoted on many occasions, and Arial and others have told the members here that I hold to positions that I do not hold to.)

Yes all serious bible students hold to some presuppositions, once again I never said I was immune to them. But I will admit that Literal interpretation limits tranlsational options, whereas symbolism method and metaphorical method, and allegorical method have a wide range of translational options..

How about you join in forum participation and deal with what is in that paragraph instead of the person who wrote it. And with the rest of the post that followed. The purpose of this forum, at least, is civil discourse and discussion of the ideas that others put forth. Not just arguing and dismissing people and everything they say. That may be what you are used to, but this is not that.

 

[Arial]

If Christ did not pay for the sins of mankind, mankind is still not eternally condemned, eternal condemnation is the result of not putting one's faith in God's offer of salvation.

That would be unbelief which you say Christ DID pay for.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Why not take the literal meaning of this passage, and not try to impose your theological presuppositions?

What I posted was the literal meaning of the passage, as demonstrated through textual exegesis. It was by definition drawn from the text, not imposed on it.

I simply can't see why people in this forum can't understand what Peter is saying.

I do understand what Peter was saying, as explained. If you think I am wrong, show me where and how from the text itself (exegesis).

I presume that if you believe that unbelievers were redeem[ed] that would somehow force [you] to change some part of your theology.

Certainly, for in that case my theology would either (a) no longer be based upon the text or (b) based upon scriptures that contradict one another.

My theology is what it is because it's drawn from and based upon the self-consistent text of scriptures.

Changing the erroneous theology would be a better mark of scholarship than changing the meaning of a text.

I fully agree. Now, where is the erroneous theology? (Don't forget to look at your own.) Are you as committed to letting scripture be the final authority as I am? I am willing to submit my view to the clear teaching of God's word if it is found to be in error through meaningful, detailed exegesis. Are you?

1. How do you reconcile your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 with the broader biblical context (analogia fidei)? As Charles Hodge said, "God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what he teaches in another. Hence, scripture must explain Scripture." If there may be different ways that a text can be interpreted, the correct interpretation is the one that aligns with what scripture teaches elsewhere on the same topic.

2. What is your position on this matter? What do you see as the strongest biblical evidence for your position? And how do you address the counter-evidence?

3. Are there any theologians or scholars you find particularly persuasive on this issue, and why?