So I did a little walking off of turkey this afternoon and I think I've discovered a weakness in my turkey coupon analogy that would trip folks up. But I will clarify that in a separate thread here and will respond to your response below;


Now, if you are in agreement with this statement then that's good.

Right with you!

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.

And there we are, that while the same word may be used with the same meaning when applied to the same types of argument, we may apply that hermenutical rule when the meaning is otherwise unclear. But we seem to agree that 2 Peter here is being spoken of in a difference sense, now speaking of the lost and not the saved. That was my point, that the Greek language has the capacity more than English to do this, making the analysis of sense or type of use (ie context) more critical and here price paid and possession are NOT going together because it is not spoken of in a salvific sense.

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.

We agree. My point was that 2 Peter was not unclear to me nor does my application of the verb used in this sense contradict other Scripture, where it was applied in a different sense. It DID contradict other Scripture as you were applying it, which is why the rule doesn't seem to apply.

If the price was paid, then if an object was involved, it becomes the possession of the one who paid the price.
We need care here in our semantics. I think you mean possession in the sense of rightful ownership, the right to possess, but I have to insist that possession and the right to possess are not the same. When you order a book online it is yours, you own it, but if they never send it then you never possessed it even though you bought it and have the right of possession. Mix the meaning and everything else is troubled.

the reasons for God's discrimination must be in Himself and that alone. .... But again, whatever the reasons were/are, they are not based upon something which God 'saw' in any of the elect

I know what you mean. I know the doctrines, Pilgrim. But I'll spar with you a bit more on this to qualify what I think we both believe about the points.

I know this, that Jesus taught me that my God sees more worth in me than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:31) Granted that may not be much, but I must consider those words whenever I consider Romans, which in Chapter 8 reiterates that all the nations are worthless to God, that nobody is righteous, and that our righteousness and works are as filthy rags. We can reconcile these differences, but not by making assertions as you've made them...those only create the contradictions in my view. If we are left to the empty words that God never saw anything in the elect, then we have just another terrible conundrum. I don't really think you mean what you say in an unqualified sense, so feel free to qualify so that you don't contradict Jesus in your attempt to be a consistent Calvinist.

Our doctrines are stated only because in our history we ran into heresies on particular points. The doctrine of Unconditional Election was intended, not to prove or suggest that God sees nothing of worth in his elect, but rather to show that there nothing we are doing that grants us worth. People always felt that some religious thing or another, or nowadays some simple niceties, are sufficient to garner the favour of God. Unconditional Election starts and stops with that heresy. To extend to say that God sees me as worth less to him than many sparrows simply puts you at odds with Christ, and the doctrine, as interpreted so incorrectly, falls. But it does not mean as you say. In it's context, rightly applied, it still grants that God may actually something in us Jesus calls "worth", and worth dying for. The point every good Calvinist makes is that, while Unconditional Election stalwartly proves our righteousness is of no worth to God and useless in our salvation, we simply do not know why we were chosen, or why he did what he did for us and not others. The answer NOTHING, is the answer we give as to why we do not deserve salvation, and accounts for why people go to hell. But why he DID do what he did lies, as you said, within his own mind and, according to Jesus speaking his mind, I think it's not counter-Calvinist to say that he saw us as worth more than many sparrows, and never saw them as worth more than dogs who return to their vomit. And creating us as vessels of honour and them as such vessels of dishonour, was his good pleasure. It IS something he saw in the elect, he sees vessels of honour worth more than many sparrows. What we still do not know, beyond the fact that it was his right and that it pleased him so, is why he made us thus.

I suspect you don't substantially disagree with me on that.

Not easy stuff, harder by writing back and forth asynchronously, but let the iron sharpen ;-)