Bro, I never suggested )I don't think) that he atoned for the sins of the non-elect, but did say he paid a price sufficient to do so, which is standard Calvinist fare so I hope we're close to done on this one. In fact, where I did use atonement as being effectual I spoke only his elect, of atonement as being limited.
I tried to make my objection and position clear in my last reply. Evidently I, 1) did just that and you have chosen to circumvent my explanation, or 2) I wasn't clear enough. If the latter be the case, then I apologize and will now attempt in very brief terms to convey my thoughts more succinctly.
If Christ
actually paid a price that covered ALL, then ALL are atoned for due to the forensic and substitutionary nature of Christ's passive obedience. That is why I can say, without hesitation, that the inherent value of Christ's blood
could have saved all (sufficient) IF it had
actually been shed for ALL. Now, if you are in agreement with this statement then that's good.
2Pet 2:1 has been disputed by myriad people, that seems to indicate that its meaning is unclear.
I'd advise great care with that notion; we are the only ones in the history of written revelation who seem to see "trinity" in Scripture, but I wouldn't surrender the doctrine to the "unclear" file....the myriads are simply wrong.
The chasmic difference between those who dispute the Trinity and those who dispute the meaning of 2Pet 2:1 is that those who do not acknowledge the Trinity are unbelievers (cf. "Athanasian Creed"
"This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.") vs. the 'in-house' debate among professing believers where salvation itself is not at stake. The hermeneutical principle stands: The unclear are always to be interpreted by the more clear. And it is also true that any interpretation cannot contradict that which is established by other Scriptures, aka: Scripture cannot contradict itself. Thus, I maintain that
agorazo cannot be understood in the soteriological sense but rather it is to be understood in a non-soteriological sense, which examples abound in the OT. See also Gary Long's excellent exegetical study on 2Pet 2:1
HERE. I believe Peter is using the commercial use of the word, familiar to most, and bringing it over and applying it to these false teachers. A quick example would be the redeeming of Ruth's husband's parcel of land by the paying of a price which entitled him to the land, including Ruth. Boaz didn't actually 'save' Ruth via the redemption of a piece of property.
But the transaction of paying a price to purchase something and thus taking ownership of it IS used in a salvific sense in the NT when speaking of Christ redeeming His people.
I think you have a good appreciation of that hermeneutical rule, except where that rule will result in Scripture contradicting Scripture. Then the rule does not apply and more work needs to be done on the interpretation and it is the latter we're into here. It is not adequate hermeneutics to rely on a principle that leaves you with open contradiction as I think you have. If you're rigid in the application of that rule here, they you are in deep, deep theological trouble indeed, or your answer is that the entire verse is still not clear to you.
I have already addressed this contention above, but let me state it once again... If one's
interpretation of an unclear passage contradicts an established doctrine from more clear passages than the principle stands and the interpretation of the unclear passage must go.
If you are going to stick with that rule, you now have the opinion that to be bought with the price always includes possession. Since we call anyone bought with the price, owned, and fully possessed by Christ a Christian, and since all Christians do not lose their salvation, you are in a bind explaining how the "bought" of 2 Peter here are false teachers doomed to destruction for teaching damnable heresies, which is not exactly a common Scriptural description of 'Christian" You're other out is to say that they lost their salvation.
Not at all... see my explanation and Gary Long's exegetical study, also referenced above for an interpretation that is consistent with the text and with the rest of Scripture and which is consistent with biblical concept of purchase --> possession.
Agreed, where "actually paid" = atonement. Again, atonement for sin is not the same in theology as the sufficiency to atone for sin. As you said yourself, "the blood of Christ was sufficient to atone for all, but " the design of the atonement did not include all."
If I may here try to redeem my story's analogy, where my landlord actually paid a sufficient price, an actual and not a theoretical price, it was not efficacious in my actually procuring the possession.
If the
price was paid, then if an object was involved, it becomes the possession of the one who paid the price. If a person (slave) is redeemed by paying a ransom (cf. Hosea), then the individual becomes the possession (ownership) of the buyer. And this is exactly my point which I must maintain... Christ's payment was His own self on the cross, that instrument of justice, both temporal and spiritual. His death was the actual payment of the ransom owed to God, which set ALL for whom He died (paid the price) free from bondage. If the price He paid was for all, which again it sure sounds like this is what you are trying to defend???, then de facto, according to divine law, then all are no longer debtors to God for sins.
[God has the absolute right to create some to honor and some to dishonor
Absolutely agreed. Except to say that verse and the preceding ones in Romans are talking about the exact opposite of God making NO distinctions between people, it is defending God's place to make drastic separation between people. The claimant wants God to account for why he was made "thus", ie, a dishonourable pot. God's response is that it is his absolute right.
No, God is discriminate re: the salvation of some and the damnation of others. However, the issue isn't that God doesn't make choices between people, but rather the
basis upon which that discrimination is made. I maintain that the reason, general as it might be, IS given... e.g., His 'good pleasure', according to His 'eternal counsel', predestination 'in love', et al. Since, being a Calvinist, I hold tenaciously to the doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL Election, i.e., there is NOTHING in the creature which is commendable to God, then the reasons for God's discrimination must be in Himself and that alone. Now, I readily admit that the specific reasons for God's discrimination isn't revealed which existed from eternity in God's "mind". But again, whatever the reasons were/are, they are not based upon something which God 'saw' in any of the elect which swayed Him to choose them over those who were passed by. I hope that clears things up for you?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
