Bought versus Redeemed

[AustinC]

But what was bought? The means of salvation.. Christ became our mercy seat, and through Him, we can obtain the righteousness of God.

Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all - thus He sacrificed Himself for all mankind.

Everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have everlasting life offers the "righteousness of God" to all mankind.

I did not say anything of that sort. Folks, note they do not address what I say, they make up nonsense and ascribe the idea to me.

Van, you absolutely tell us that it is the human will that seals the deal with God.
You tell us that God bought and ransomed all humanity, 100% of humans from Adam to the end of time, but that is only effective if the individual person "believes into Jesus" so that they won't perish.
To restate:
All that Jesus did is only actually effective and complete...if...the individual person "believes into" Jesus. If the individual human does not do the believing then Jesus great sacrifice on their behalf was completely and utterly wasted blood that does nothing and does not purchase the individual out of sin and damnation.
@Van, it is right there in your own words. Any discerning person can see what you teach and any Christian with any discernment can see the massive contradictions and problems that your teaching causes.

I leave the readers to decide.

 

[Van]

Being bought does not tell us the purpose of the purchase. We have to discern the purpose from the context. Were they bought to put them under the New Covenant which provides the means of salvation, or were they bought to deliver them into salvation?

Did I declare Christ bought all humanity, or is that the inescapable message of 2 Peter 2:1 which says the person heading for swift destruction had been bought by the Master. Likewise, does scripture say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Or Christ became the means of salvation for the whole world?

Saying humanity has been bought for the purpose of providing their means of salvation is not saying they all have been washed by His blood.

God crediting our worthless faith as righteousness does not say our faith "caused" Him to credit our faith. OTOH, I did say His choice to credit our faith was by His grace, which is opposite of the misrepresentation.

 

[Alan Gross]

So how shall we answer this? The first part of the answer is to look at the word despotes, translated as ‘Lord’ in the NKJV and as ‘Master’ in other versions. Despotes is mostly used to describe human masters. On the few occasions where it is used of God, it usually speaks of the Father, not the Son. The regular word for ‘Lord,’ when used of the Deity, is Kurios, which has divine overtones, being the word used by the writers of the Greek ‘Septuagint’ translation to render the Divine name, ‘Yahweh.’ The only other place in the N.T. where despotes might refer to Christ is Jude 4, but even here it seems to speak of God the Father. It is also important to observe that whatever this ‘buying’ entailed, there is no mention of the blood of the Lord Jesus as there is in 1 Peter 1:18-19 or Revelation 5:9-10.

Bravo!

So if despotes does indeed refer to God the Father, in what way did he ‘buy’ believers? We should first be aware that the verse is looking back to the O.T. period: ‘But there were false prophets among the people…..’ The Israelites were regarded as having been bought or redeemed out of Egypt by God. ‘Until the people pass over, O LORD, until the people pass over whom You have purchased’ (Exod. 15:16). ‘Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not the Father who bought you?’ (Deut. 32:6). God purchased the Israelites with His great power which He exhibited when He brought the plagues upon Egypt. But although all were ‘bought’ in that they all came out of Israel, very few of them ever reached the Promised Land (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-5). These false teachers have likewise come into the church, but have not been redeemed by Christ.

Bravo! Bravo!

The reference to 'buying' is an Old Testament allusion and refers to those who are outwardly Christian but not inwardly.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Yes, a difficult passage. Thank you, for your treatment of it!!

 

[37818]

Bravo!



Bravo! Bravo!



Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Yes, a difficult passage. Thank you, for your treatment of it!!

At issue, is the Son, who is God's Lamb, the same God as His Father?

 

[Van]

At issue, is the Son, who is God's Lamb, the same God as His Father?

I do not have a problem with two different persons of the trinity being found in scripture. So if God the Father is in view, I do not see the need to claim that means God the Son is also in view. However, having said that, we must return to Jude 1:4 and this phrase: who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Does this refer to two Persons, or One? One, Jesus Christ.
Therefore in 2 Peter 2:1, where someone denies the Master, the conclusion must be God the Son is in view.

 

[AustinC]

Being bought does not tell us the purpose of the purchase. We have to discern the purpose from the context. Were they bought to put them under the New Covenant which provides the means of salvation, or were they bought to deliver them into salvation?

Did I declare Christ bought all humanity, or is that the inescapable message of 2 Peter 2:1 which says the person heading for swift destruction had been bought by the Master. Likewise, does scripture say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Or Christ became the means of salvation for the whole world?

Saying humanity has been bought for the purpose of providing their means of salvation is not saying they all have been washed by His blood.

God crediting our worthless faith as righteousness does not say our faith "caused" Him to credit our faith. OTOH, I did say His choice to credit our faith was by His grace, which is opposite of the misrepresentation.

If a person is under the New Covenant then that person receives an eternal inheritance.

*Hebrews 9:14-18,23-28*
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

 

[Van]

If a person is under the New Covenant then that person receives an eternal inheritance. SNIP

Yet another utterly false assertion.
How much more will the blood of Christ "purify" our conscience. Does this say they had been "purified?" Nope!
Christ is the mediator of a new Covenant. - Does this say everyone under a new Covenant has been purified? Nope!
Only "those who are called may receive the promise."
The New Covenant was indeed "inaugurated" by the death, the shedding of His blood, or Christ.
Thus His sacrifice (a completed action) has continuing results - to put away sin, one sinner at a time when God transfers them into Christ's spiritual body and they undergo the washing (purification) of regeneration, being made alive together with Christ.

 

[AustinC]

Yet another utterly false assertion.
How much more will the blood of Christ "purify" our conscience. Does this say they had been "purified?" Nope!
Christ is the mediator of a new Covenant. - Does this say everyone under a new Covenant has been purified? Nope!
Only "those who are called may receive the promise."
The New Covenant was indeed "inaugurated" by the death, the shedding of His blood, or Christ.
Thus His sacrifice (a completed action) has continuing results - to put away sin, one sinner at a time when God transfers them into Christ's spiritual body and they undergo the washing (purification) of regeneration, being made alive together with Christ.

You snipped the Bible and what it tells you and then declare a false assertion. You don't even address Hebrews 9.
*Hebrews 9:15-17*
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Read the passage. The New Covenant established an eternal inheritance to those who are called.

Is the entire world called and does the entire world receive the New Covenant by being bought, as you have asserted? If so, then the entire world would receive an eternal inheritance.
However, it is only those sheep to whom Jesus speaks and hear his voice that are called and receive the New Covenant. The entire world was not bought or ransomed by Jesus. If they all were bought/ransomed by Jesus, they all would receive an eternal inheritance.

 

[Van]

SNIP
Is the entire world called and does the entire world receive the New Covenant by being bought, as you have asserted? If so, then the entire world would receive an eternal inheritance.
However, it is only those sheep to whom Jesus speaks and hear his voice that are called and receive the New Covenant. The entire world was not bought or ransomed by Jesus. If they all were bought/ransomed by Jesus, they all would receive an eternal inheritance.

But you still post about my behavior rather than my position.

How much more will the blood of Christ "purify" our conscience. Does this say they had been "purified?" Nope!
Christ is the mediator of a new Covenant. - Does this say everyone under a new Covenant has been purified? Nope!
Only "those who are called may receive the promise."
The New Covenant was indeed "inaugurated" by the death, the shedding of His blood, or Christ.
Thus His sacrifice (a completed action) has continuing results - to put away sin, one sinner at a time when God transfers them into Christ's spiritual body and they undergo the washing (purification) of regeneration, being made alive together with Christ
Did I say the "entire world" was "called" (transferred into Christ)? Nope
Did I say the "entire world receives the New Covenant by being bought?" Nope
Limited Atonement is a fiction, Christ became the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.
Christ did lay down His life as a ransom for all, not the few! 1 Timothy 2:4-6
To purchase does not indicate what is purchased, you read into purchase what is not intended.

Being bought does not tell us the purpose of the purchase. We have to discern the purpose from the context. Were they bought to put them under the New Covenant which provides the means of salvation, or were they bought to deliver them into salvation?

Did I declare Christ bought all humanity, or is that the inescapable message of 2 Peter 2:1 which says the person heading for swift destruction had been bought by the Master. Likewise, does scripture say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Or Christ became the means of salvation for the whole world?

Saying humanity has been bought for the purpose of providing their means of salvation is not saying they all have been washed by His blood.

God crediting our worthless faith as righteousness does not say our faith "caused" Him to credit our faith. OTOH, I did say His choice to credit our faith was by His grace, which is opposite of the misrepresentation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does bought refer to redemption of [sic. 'or'? purchasing the means of salvation? Purchasing the means of salvation, so the verse in no way challenges the sound doctrine of "Once saved always saved."

Agorazo simply means to buy, purchase or acquire. The context determines its exact meaning. Revelation 5:9-10, NASB. 'Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased [Gk. agorazo] for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.' Christ has purchased us for God by His blood, and it is clear that it is for all time. The difference between this verse and 2 Peter 2:1 is that there it appears to have been the Father who 'bought' these false teachers and there is no mention of the blood of Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:6 is poorly translated as bought or redeemed, rather the Father "who you acquired, who you made, who you established" conveys the idea.

I shall be interested as to what you think is the difference between 'buy' and 'acquire.' But the rest I think you need to read again. I don't think you wanted to say what you have written.

Yes, the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:1 have not been redeemed, delivered from the bondage of saint [sic. 'Satan'?], but Christ bought the right and means to saved them, if God so chooses. And in this case, God did not choose to save them as they are heading for destruction.

Revelation 5:9-10 (see above) refutes this strange concept. I reject utterly your unique mistranslation of hilasmos in 1 John 2:2.

The New Covenant is made for humanity, as Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, purchasing the right to redeem those of His choosing.

That is not what the Bible says. This is what the Bible says:
'For this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I shall be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb. 8:10-12).
If the new covenant is made with 'humanity' then there can be no objection to baptizing infants into it and we should all become Presbyterians. But as you can see by the parts of the quotation that I have underlined, the new covenant is made with those who have God's righteous laws written on their minds and hearts, who know God and whose sins God has forgiven. The Mosaic covenant was made with the physical descendants of Abraham (via Isaac); the new covenant was made with the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:7, 26-29. Contrast Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10).

 

[Van]

Agorazo simply means to buy, purchase or acquire. The context determines its exact meaning. Revelation 5:9-10, NASB. 'Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased [Gk. agorazo] for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.' Christ has purchased us for God by His blood, and it is clear that it is for all time. The difference between this verse and 2 Peter 2:1 is that there it appears to have been the Father who 'bought' these false teachers and there is no mention of the blood of Christ. SNIP

It does not "appear" that the Master of 2 Peter 2:1 is the Father, because the Master of Jude 1:4 is the Son.
Did Christ purchase with His blood the person heading for destruction in 2 Peter 2:1? Yes
Did the person heading for destruction become a part of a kingdom and priest to our God, and will the person reign upon the earth? Nope.
Christ bought humanity, paying the ransom for all, to provide the means of salvation to everyone who believes.
Christ bought individuals to deliver them out of the realm of darkness and into Christ's spiritual body.
How did Christ provide a ransom for all? With His precious blood. Would this include the person of 2 Peter 2:1? Yes. So was this person transferred in Christ or did the purchase provide the person with the means of salvation which he trampled on?

 

[Van]

‘Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not the Father who bought you?’ (Deut. 32:6).

Here we have an effort to demonstrate the Father bought the Israelis, to support the claim the Master of 2 Peter 2:1 refers to the Father. First the apparent quote from the NKJV of the verse is edited, foreshortened. Here is the actual verse:
NKJV
"Do you thus deal with the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?"

The Hebrew word translated "bought" in the NKJV is better translated as created. The word has two meanings, one meaning to create and the other to acquire, obtain, possess. Created fits best because the word is co-located with "made you" and "established you."

 

[AustinC]

But you still post about my behavior rather than my position.

How much more will the blood of Christ "purify" our conscience. Does this say they had been "purified?" Nope!
Christ is the mediator of a new Covenant. - Does this say everyone under a new Covenant has been purified? Nope!
Only "those who are called may receive the promise."
The New Covenant was indeed "inaugurated" by the death, the shedding of His blood, or Christ.
Thus His sacrifice (a completed action) has continuing results - to put away sin, one sinner at a time when God transfers them into Christ's spiritual body and they undergo the washing (purification) of regeneration, being made alive together with Christ
Did I say the "entire world" was "called" (transferred into Christ)? Nope
Did I say the "entire world receives the New Covenant by being bought?" Nope
Limited Atonement is a fiction, Christ became the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.
Christ did lay down His life as a ransom for all, not the few! 1 Timothy 2:4-6
To purchase does not indicate what is purchased, you read into purchase what is not intended.

Being bought does not tell us the purpose of the purchase. We have to discern the purpose from the context. Were they bought to put them under the New Covenant which provides the means of salvation, or were they bought to deliver them into salvation?

Did I declare Christ bought all humanity, or is that the inescapable message of 2 Peter 2:1 which says the person heading for swift destruction had been bought by the Master. Likewise, does scripture say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. Or Christ became the means of salvation for the whole world?

Saying humanity has been bought for the purpose of providing their means of salvation is not saying they all have been washed by His blood.

God crediting our worthless faith as righteousness does not say our faith "caused" Him to credit our faith. OTOH, I did say His choice to credit our faith was by His grace, which is opposite of the misrepresentation.

You stated these exact words:
"Christ’s sacrifice on the cross bought us out of our prior condition and put us, all mankind, under the New Covenant in His blood.. We no longer must remain separated from God, because our sins can be washed away by the blood of Jesus."

So, those words speak universalism.

But, you backtrack on this and then share (my interpretation) that Jesus blood only potentially bought people. People have to choose God and God must declare their faith as righteous before that blood payment is actually finalized.

Your teaching, Van, is a twist on what the Judaizers taught and Paul condemned in Galatians. No matter how you try to talk around it, that is the essence of your teaching and it is decidedly not what God teaches.

 

[AustinC]

Christ bought humanity, paying the ransom for all, to provide the means of salvation to everyone who believes.

Read what you assert.
You make Jesus ransom a secondary action that can only be effective if men choose to believe. Therefore man's willful choose to believe is more powerful than Jesus sacrifice on the cross.
Can you see this or is this just a huge blind spot for you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It does not "appear" that the Master of 2 Peter 2:1 is the Father, because the Master of Jude 1:4 is the Son.

It does appear that the 'Master of 2 Peter 2:1 is the Father because of the O.T. allusion, of which more later. There is a textual variant in Jude 4 which makes it somewhat uncertain who 'Master refers to. However every other appearance of despotes in the N.T. that does not refer to human masters (Luke 2:29; Acts of the Apostles 10:29; Revelation 6:10) clearly refers to the Father or to the Triune God rather than to Christ.

Did Christ purchase with His blood the person heading for destruction in 2 Peter 2:1? Yes

Nope. The text does not say so.

Did the person heading for destruction become a part of a kingdom and priest to our God, and will the person reign upon the earth? Nope.

Agreed.

Christ bought humanity, paying the ransom for all, to provide the means of salvation to everyone who believes.
Christ bought individuals to deliver them out of the realm of darkness and into Christ's spiritual body.

This is fantasy. Christ died to redeem those whom the Father gave to Him and He has lost not a single one (John 6:37). He laid down His life for the sheep, not the goats.

How did Christ provide a ransom for all? With His precious blood.

With what then did He ransom the individuals to deliver them out of darkness etc.?

Would this include the person of 2 Peter 2:1? Yes.

No. Christ laid down His life for the sheep.

I note that you have not relied to my point about the New Covenant. Here it is again in case you missed it:

The New Covenant is made for humanity, as Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, purchasing the right to redeem those of His choosing.

That is not what the Bible says. This is what the Bible says:
'For this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I shall be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb. 8:10-12).
If the new covenant is made with 'humanity' then there can be no objection to baptizing infants into it and we should all become Presbyterians. But as you can see by the parts of the quotation that I have underlined, the new covenant is made with those who have God's righteous laws written on their minds and hearts, who know God and whose sins God has forgiven. The Mosaic covenant was made with the physical descendants of Abraham (via Isaac); the new covenant was made with the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:7, 26-29. Contrast Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10).

 

[Van]

So, those words speak universalism.

Yet another misrepresentation post falsely asserting my view is the oppose of what I said.

 

[Van]

Read what you assert.
You make Jesus ransom a secondary action that can only be effective if men choose to believe. Therefore man's willful choose to believe is more powerful than Jesus sacrifice on the cross.
Can you see this or is this just a huge blind spot for you?

I did make Jesus ransom a secondary action, or the vital first action to provide the means of salvation for all humanity?
God's plan does make our choice to believe fully in Christ, as determined by God, a necessary action, per John 6:28-29.
Man's choice to believe does not make that choice powerful, as salvation does not depend on the man that wills, Romans 9:16.

 

[Van]

It does appear that the 'Master of 2 Peter 2:1 is the Father because of the O.T. allusion, of which more later. There is a textual variant in Jude 4 which makes it somewhat uncertain who 'Master refers to. However every other appearance of despotes in the N.T. that does not refer to human masters (Luke 2:29; Acts of the Apostles 10:29; Revelation 6:10) clearly refers to the Father or to the Triune God rather than to Christ. SNIP

1) Recall this poster questioned my presentation of the Greek as reflected in published views of Greek scholars?
2) The textual variant of Jude 4 mentioned by Martin, is reflected in later manuscripts and not in the earlier and better witnesses. Thus Jude 4 demonstrates the Master is God the Son. And since the same idea, denying the Master is also expressed in 2 Peter 2:1, the conclusion must be that the Master refers to Christ.
3) Does every other "appearance of despotes in the N.T. refer to human masters or God the Father? Nope, 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 1:4 total more than one. My count is 4 usages referring to humans, 4 usages referring to God the Father, and 2 usages referring to God the Son.

 

[AustinC]

I did make Jesus ransom a secondary action, or the vital first action to provide the means of salvation for all humanity?
God's plan does make our choice to believe fully in Christ, as determined by God, a necessary action, per John 6:28-29.
Man's choice to believe does not make that choice powerful, as salvation does not depend on the man that wills, Romans 9:16.

Do you see your massive contradiction in what you just posted. You assert man's work and deny it at the same time. You nullify yourself with your comment here.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1) Recall this poster questioned my presentation of the Greek as reflected in published views of Greek scholars?

Absolutely.

2) The textual variant of Jude 4 mentioned by Martin, is reflected in later manuscripts and not in the earlier and better witnesses. Thus Jude 4 demonstrates the Master is God the Son. And since the same idea, denying the Master is also expressed in 2 Peter 2:1, the conclusion must be that the Master refers to Christ.

The vast majority of the extant MSS have the textual variant. Those who favour the Critical Text will favour one view; those who (like me) favour the Majority or Byzantine text, the other. But we shall have to agree to disagree.

3) Does every other "appearance of despotes in the N.T. refer to human masters or God the Father? Nope, 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 1:4 total more than one. My count is 4 usages referring to humans, 4 usages referring to God the Father, and 2 usages referring to God the Son.

Nice begging of the question! Even if we allow Jude 1:4 as referring to Christ, which is uncertain, it has no bearing upon 2 Peter 2:1.
This leads us to the question of Deuteronomy 32:6. The question is whether qanah (7069) means 'Buy' or 'create' in that verse? I have no knowledge of Hebrew, but I can read Vine's Expository Dictionary as well as Van, and it is clear that the word can mean either. The KJV, NKJV and NASB have 'buy'; the "agenda-driven" ESV and NIV have 'create.' I will simply observe that the only other appearance of qanah in Deuteronomy is in 28:68, where it can only mean 'buy.' Also, it seems rather likely that 2 Peter 2:1 is alluding to the verse and whether it means 'buy' or 'create' there, it can only be God the Father rather than the Son who is being referenced.

But more important than any of this is that in Van's misunderstanding of salvation, the cross, to him, is not the pivotal thing. Christ, he says, died for everyone without exception, and therefore His sufferings and death have no direct bearing on who is saved. But Paul declares, '... I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2). For him, Christ's death was absolutely centre stage.

I am still waiting for Van's answer concerning the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is made for humanity, as Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, purchasing the right to redeem those of His choosing.

That is not what the Bible says. This is what the Bible says:
'For this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I shall be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb. 8:10-12).
If the new covenant is made with 'humanity' then there can be no objection to baptizing infants into it and we should all become Presbyterians. But as you can see by the parts of the quotation that I have underlined, the new covenant is made with those who have God's righteous laws written on their minds and hearts, who know God and whose sins God has forgiven. The Mosaic covenant was made with the physical descendants of Abraham (via Isaac); the new covenant was made with the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:7, 26-29. Contrast Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10).