The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 Peter 2:1 Question

I have a question regarding 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” NKJV

In looking at some Reformed commentaries, particularly where it says: “even denying the Lord who bought them”. They say that the NT distinguishes between purchase and redemption. All are purchased but not all are redeemed. To quote one commentary (Believer’s Bible Commentary): “While His work is sufficient for redemption of all mankind, it is only effective for those who repent, believe, and accept him.”

This is the understanding of such notables as CH Spurgeon and John MacArthur; which by the way, is how they also interpret Jn. 3:16.

Would you concur with this commentary?
If not how would you interpret the words “even denying the Lord who bought them” in light of the context of the passage?
Especially when we consider that false prophets and false teachers are false Christians.

Something that comes to my mind when it comes to what these commentaries say is. Why would Christ purchase all mankind if He wasn't going to redeem them also?
This would seem to be more in line with Wesleyan prevenient grace, where by God purchased all man, thus making it possible for man to repent, and believe in Christ. Rather than be irresistibly drawn to repent and believe in Christ.

Saying: “While His work is sufficient for redemption of all mankind, it is only effective for those who repent, believe, and accept him.” Also makes it sound like redemption is determined by the work of man himself when he repents believes and accepts him.

I might be reading too much into what they are trying to say, but I find the language they are using to be confusing.

Tom

Tom,

Here are two men who I think interpret this passage correctly without contradicting other more clear passages and whose interpretation is faithful to the text itself.

1. Redemption in II Peter 2.1, by Gary Long

2. Agorazo in II Peter 2:1, by Jim Ellis

3. Sufficient for All, by Jim Ellis

Tom,

If I am not mistaken your question is also fully discussed and answered in the book "The Gospel as Taught by Calvin" to which I refered you earlier this year.

Johan

Johan

I appreciate book recommendations and often buy some of them. However, I have quite a few books on my book shelf that I need to read before I buy more.
This is one of the reasons that if I don't find the information in the books and commentaries I already have, I look for articles that deal with the issue, I am studying.

One of the things that has always bothered me about ordering books especially here in Canada is that sometimes shipping and handling costs more than the actual books themselves.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Being a Calvinist ex-English teacher now in the procurement business, and full of Christmas turkey that was given to me as a gift by a coupon, I find your questions intriguing, bringing the blood back to my head. Below my post here, I'll paste a portion of the second article referred to by Pilgrim above, which is good background support for what I'm about to say. So you might read that, and then read my note, or not.

DEFINING OUR TERMS
I think the confusion arises because of a subtle but important difference between the verbs "to buy" and "to procure". In Greek language you tend to have to consider more carefully the context of a word because the same word is used across the contexts. English grants us the ability to be much lazier in the interpretation of things because we just come up with another whole word.

While there may be differences in the languages, and even our own general usage of our English (as I'll illustrate below), I think the concepts are consistent. So the extend that a Calvinst ex-English teacher now in procurement full of turkey-by-coupon can do, I'll give my two bits here.

Because of the beauty of the English language, we're able to illustrate how we can split that hair between to buy and to procure and solve your dilemma. That blurb from the article does a similar thing, but by word study of the Greek, which is why I repost it here.

TERMS OF CONTRACT
Being "bought" doesn't necessarily mean "procured". As you know in both a complete and incomplete transaction, a price may be fully paid. The difference between whether or not there is breach of contract is whether the goods are ever handed over once the tender (usually money) is surrendered. When they take your money and don't give you the goods paid for, it's a kind of thievery by breach of contract. They've stolen, not your money, which is theirs, but the thing bought, which is now yours. But do you see that the price is still paid? And see how the rightful claim over the goods by the payor is now created, even though he hasn't collected? The thievery is not about the money, it;s about the thing purchased; you own it now, and they still have it. In our day to day experience, the concept of actually collecting what was paid for tends to go with the concept of "to buy" or "to pay". Christmas shopping bags hanging from both arms you run into a friend in the mall who asks "So what did you buy?" He doesn't ask "What did you procure?" But it's not strictly necessary that paying the price goes with collecting the goods (in this fallen world) and that's where I think people may trip up on Scirpture's use of "bought" when it's referring to false Christians, or any covenant-breaking heathen.

Yet it's not complicated, it's just our habit of the word's use.

If you sue in court because you paid for something and they never delivered the goods and the judge asks you "Sir, did you buy that item?" you can say yes. It's by virtue of you having bought it that you have any claim over it in court at all; answer "no" and the judge will throw the whole thing out of court. If he asks "Sir, did you procure that item?" you must say no because of the difference between the concepts of merely paying a price and actually procuring a paid-for item, which is a verb that includes the notion of actually taking possession. This is English at it's best. You can use the word procure in other ways, too, to take into possession without the concept of buying something , as in "I hiked to the stream and procured some water".

Being "bought" by Christ doesn't mean that someone was "procured".

Scripture is at liberty to use the term bought to mean that Christ paid a sufficient price for all mankind, including Christians, even if not all mankind completed the transaction with him. In this sense, they are "bought" just as we are bought and have God's claim over them just as his claim is over us (and your claim in court is over the goods you bought), yet they are not procured as we ar, nor does Scripture ever refer to them in that sense. So Scripture is right to speak of both the elect and non-elect as "bought" or "purchased" because indeed God has given over sufficient funds to buy the whole store. As Calvinists though, we never separate the notion of bought in the sense of fully procured, and being saved; they go together. People trip up on this verse when they assume that paying a price always means collecting what was paid for, and with thieves that's not the case. The sticker price for my sin was the same as for the unbeliever's sin; Christ's suffering and death and that price was paid. They get no discounts off that, nor are they charged any more. The difference between me and the unbeliever who dies in his sin is that while we are both wards of the state and peasant paupers, I'm the one who didn't despise the King when he offered up adoption papers and was delivered to him as his child. In any analogy you care to make, the transaction between God and me was completed and their transaction was not, which is why he is angry with them.

CALVINISM'S MAGNIFICENCE
So I find that when preachers sermonize only about how Christ paid "the price", it is less magnanimous to me than sermonizing about how far he went to write the covenantal terms, pay the price, and then secure the possession, which is how Calvinism outshines the competition. On this topic their theology is not incorrect, and ours is magnificent.


More on your question: "Why would Christ purchase all mankind if He wasn't going to redeem them also?"


In case you don't have time for a wordy answer, I'll offer this.....

SHORT ANSWER
So that no turkey may boast.

But I think some theological thinking may be necessary before that answer can be understood. So I will also give a more long winded....

LONG ANSWER
He did purchase them and he did all that is necessary for them to be redeemed. But perhaps there's a deficiency in understanding how the transaction in redemption is supposed to go. I think it's related to the fact that we have a trinitarian and sovereign God and a depraved humanity, very Calvinistic notions. Which means the question has roots in an Arminian understanding, but the answer is Calvinistic and so it may take more words if I feel like digging down, and I do.

Christ's work, while a sufficient price, is not fully redemption for the non-elect because while the price was given up, the goods were not handed over. It's an incomplete transaction. It's not that God is angry because they stole the price of Christ's atonement, or made it worth less by not converting. The Father is satisfied with the Son's accomplishment and does not look down upon it has having been shamed or made void. As I noted earlier, it is the purchased unbeliever that is the stolen item, not the price paid, and it is the selfish unbeliever who has kept himself to himself and not surrendered that which has been claimed by purchaser who bought him. That, by definition, means the covenant terms are not fulfilled; there was ultimately no redemption. That coupon is not redeemed because of a default by the greedy one still holding onto the goods.

I'd like to expand on that....

"Why would Christ purchase all mankind if He wasn't going to redeem them also?" I think there are two ways to think about the redemption mentioned in your question and analyzing that may reveal the root of your concern as lying in a misconception about redemption. Those two ways are to see redemption as;

1) us cashing in on Christ's atonement to get eternal life we never deserved (the simpler view) or

2) God cashing in on Christ's atonement to get us whom he always loved (the more complex understanding).

The first case tends to tickle the Arminian mind, the latter a Calvinist. The former focuses on the individual person's temporal claim in this life, the latter a triune God's claim in eternity. I'll respond to both perspectives by referring to them by #1 and #2 respectively and we'll see how only Calvinism can fully reconcile the Scripture troubling you by the theological majesty of it's response. In the end, Arminianism can not put together a coherent response, only Calvinism can.

I would say first that, Calvinist or Arminian, redemption isn't a guarantee of anything. It's simply a definition of a type of transaction by coupon, as it were. It's a guarantee that IF the redeemer submits the coupon THEN they will receive the goods without having to pay more, but it's NOT a guarantee that:

1) everyone will cash in their coupons (this is where Arminian gets off the bus), or

2) everyone gets a coupon to cash in (considered a more Calvinist idea).

Some would say the latter is more Calvinist, but that is where you have your question....why then isn't God handing out more coupons and getting full value for the price paid? Who would pay enough money to buy everyone in town a turkey, then only give out coupons to two people? That's your struggle.

But there is one other possibility, that redemption is not a guarantee that;

2) all coupons will be honoured.

How this dishonour happens is the much more intriguing story than the other two responses, and far more Calvinist. I think this is where the Calvinist bus leaves, dropping off the Arminian before the theological journey has even begun to shed it's riches.

Now, if you're asking why God doesn't give that redemption coupon guarantee to everyone, then you do not sufficiently understand covenant and you are thinking like an Arminian. Alternatively, if you are asking why, despite God giving everyone a coupon, not everyone cashes in then you do not understand the depravity of man and the noetic effect of sin, and you are thinking like an Arminian.

I think the questioners think of redemption with an Arminian tinge, and it's confusing them.

A purely Calvinist approach to the question would be, why did Christ pay the full price of redemption for all mankind yet only collect so few? Maybe that sounds like the same thing to some. Yes this question understands that redemption and the cost of redemption are concepts that cannot be separated, given the definition of redemption. Yet Arminians make that mistake of separating them in the foundation of their theology. They have it right that God pays the price for my redemption, so that he can collect me. But they mess it up with their "and then I choose to be redeemed," as if it was the soup cans choice for you to get the soup can coupon! The graceful notion of the Trinity paying the price, fulfilling the terms, and delivering the goods under consideration (which is us) is absent for the Arminian. But the Calvinist believes that, while Christ has deposited enough money in the world's account to buy the whole rotten store for himself, nothing is offered up when God the Father keeps his part of the coupon's covenant, which is to simply present it and make the demand, "this is my beloved son. Repent." . But this world offers up no repentance in return. He's kept his part of the bargain as the coupon's "redeemer" and he is angry. He could turn around and go home empty like you and I must when our coupon is denied. But he has means, and a plan.

I'd like to expand on that, to complete the understanding with a present example of how we all know this concept already, and it's not complex.

My generous neighbour paid for a coupon for a turkey at the grocery store and gave me the coupon as a gift. The coupon calls me the "redeemer" and it says all I have to do is present the coupon and I will receive my gift, no more charge. A store coupon for a Christmas turkey is considered redeemed only when the contract terms are fulfilled, where somebody else pays the price and the redeemer simply shows up with the covenant. So when the terms and conditions on that document have been delivered up, then I get the turkey whose only obligation in this festive transaction was to surrender his life. If I show up with my coupon on demand, "here's the coupon, turkey please" but don't collect, then the coupon hasn't been redeemed and the account is outstanding and my turkey is still wandering around some far field. So you see how redemption is just a name for a kind of transaction where somebody else fulfills terms of a covenant (involving a price) for some other beneficiary. My turkey redemption had nothing to do with a guarantee that everyone in town gets a turkey coupon, and nothing to with any guarantee that I will even cash in the coupon. It's only a covenant that IF I produce the coupon THEN the price will be considered to have been paid and the goods will be delivered. Fine, so I show up with my one coupon and make the demand, the neighbour paid, and my part of the deal is over. The Bible teaches that, in effect, the store takes the coupon and without a thanks, ignores me completely, keeping my turkey and my neighbour's hard earned money. That's the last fail in the whole redemption thing, that my neighbour and I have been dealing with a bunch of crooks who took off with the payment that actually bought the turkey, plus the coupon which is worthless to them alone. Unless I have some power to enforce the contractual terms, I'm out a turkey and the money is lost. I return home with nothing unless I have some means to turn those crooks into truth-loving, honest citizens who will do the right thing.

But God is not without means nor power, and his Holy Spirit sets to working. That's the story of regeneration, justification, and sanctification.

In the end, the compassionate Christ (the third party) pays the price, the powerful Holy Spirit ensures sufficient completion of the covenantal terms (the coupon), and God (the redeemer) gets his Christmas turkey; me. All it took from me was my life (of truth-hating sin) and the Holy Spirit ensured that my life closed for the transaction to occur. I'm not the one cashing in the coupon, I'm the point and purpose of a fulfilled transaction while the others are turkeys still afield. Why are they still out there denying God a completed redemption? As Bonhoeffer wrote, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." Every turkey thinks he understands what that means and he runs the other way, leaving Christ penniless and God mocked.

This is how and why the doctrine of the Trinity and understanding redemption and the depravity of man matters to answering your question.

CONCLUSION
The Calvinist asks, so if the price for all was paid by Christ and the redemption for all was sufficiently completed by God the claimant, then why doesn't the Holy Spirit make sure all the turkeys are collected?

That is a lot like the question we Christians sometimes ask, so why has God save me and not my neighbour, who is a very generous and unsaved heathen?

We know the answer to that, that nobody has the answer to that. I don't know why me and not him. Which leads us to ask, so why doesn't God give us the answer to that? The Bible says, so that no turkey may boast.

And that is the long way to answer your question.

The rest of the Bible's teaching on the miracle of new life in Christ ensures we wind up as a newly embodied guest at the meal in heaven and not the main course, and maybe I could have stuck with my prince/pauper analogy and not a butchered turkey and thus twisted up the image of the heavenly gathering, but I've been eating a lot of turkey since yesterday, so I digress.



EXCERPT from Agorazo in II Peter 2:1 by Jim Ellis:
First, in the Greek Septuagint agorazõ and its related noun forms are used some twenty times to translate three Hebrew words (sabar, qanhh, and laqah); yet it is never used to translate the two great redemptive words—— those translated “redeem” (gã’al) and “ransom” or “purchase” (pãdãh). Second, of its thirty occurrences in the New Testament, agorazõ is never used in a salvation context (unless II Peter 2:1 is the exception) without the technical term “price” (times—a technical term for the blood of Christ) or its equivalent being stated or made explicit in the context (see I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4). Third, in each of the latter five references the context clearly restricts the extent of agorazõ (regardless of what it means) to believers—never to non-believers. Fourth, a word study of agorazõ, in both the Greek Old and New Testaments, reveals that the word itself does not include the payment price. When it is translated with a meaning “to buy,” whether in a salvation or non-salvation context, a payment price is always stated or made explicit by the context. Fifth, in contexts where no payment price is stated or implied, agorazõ may often be better translated as “acquire” or “obtain”. Sixth, agorazõ is never used in Scripture in a hypothetical sense unless II Peter 2:1 be the exception. Rather it is always used in a context where the buying or acquiring actually takes place.

Tulipman,

Would I be wrong in concluding, after reading through your rather long originative response to Tom, that you hold to an Amyraldian position?

1. If the price was paid for all, then de facto, the Holy Spirit does indeed make sure all the "turkeys" are collected. The incarnate Christ says it is to be so (Jh 6:37). And, He simply did that which was the will of His Father, with whom He had an eternal covenant to accomplish that very thing. Linguistically, agorazo connotes not merely the payment of price but the acquisition of that which has been paid for, aka: ownership. Those for whom Christ shed His propitiatory blood legally belong to Him.

2. God has saved me and not my neighbor because it was the eternal good pleasure of God to do so.

3. The answer to #2 is given in Scripture and quite clearly, if I may be so bold to say so. It is stated in myriad ways but none so succinctly and manifestly than what is found here:

Ephesians 1:3-6 (ASV) "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:"

Thanks for your response, Pilgrim. Thought provoking, but I'm sticking with my thesis...maybe with a few clarifications. I even edited my responses to be shorter ;-) If you think I'm still off base, please jab again.

Would I be wrong in concluding, after reading through your rather long originative response to Tom, that you hold to an Amyraldian position?

Yes, you'd be wrong. Which isn't to say that that I did a sufficient enough job to keep someone from concluding that, but I don't hold to an Amyraldian position. The time I spent around the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind may have suggested that, and common understanding around sufficiency can even slip into notions of efficacy or suggest that it's feasible for men to univocally choose. Always have to be careful around discussions on "sufficiency". But we can still say that his sacrifice was sufficient for the whole world to be saved without actually subtracting from the doctrine of limited atonement.

If the price was paid for all, then de facto, the Holy Spirit does indeed make sure all the "turkeys" are collected. The incarnate Christ says it is to be so (Jh 6:37).

I'd say you're close, but not quite right. Indeed John 6:37 confirms that all those whom the Father draws to the Son are paid for, but it does not extend so far to say that all who are paid for are necessarily drawn to the Son. We know this because of verses like 2 Peter 2:1, contrasting the notions of being "bought" with "being bought and saved". Failing to make that distinction is what gives rise to questions like Tom's. If we stick with the "all who are bought are saved" idea, then we are still left having to explain 2 Peter 2:1 which clearly contradicts that notion. Unless I'm still missing something, I think my explanation is sufficient for both verses at once.

I will say this, that while Scripture does teach that Christ's sacrifice is full of enough wealth to procure all to salvation while only being effective for us, I'm not altogether comfortable making such straight-line comparisons with our little finite definitions. Again, strict definitions do not always match common usage and we must beware of lending too much suggestion to universalism when we speak about sufficiency for all. Also, our understanding of price and sufficiency are fairly limited and I am not certain that these ideas reach the full depths of what instrinsic "worth" and "sufficiency" the atonement ultimately have, so there's a grain of salt there. Even my real-world example of turkey coupons, while overturning Arminian notions and does better than most contrived examples that leave out the securing work of the Holy Spirit, is not entirely sufficient to capture all the nuances of how atonement ultimately works....rather like painting-by-number a copy of the Mona Lisa to illustrate what the real thing looks like. But parable-like stories have their place I suppose.


Linguistically, agorazo connotes not merely the payment of price but the acquisition of that which has been paid for, aka: ownership.
I wrote a lot of words hoping to make clear that purchase, ownership and the right of possession are not the same as possession, which is part of the offence to God since possession (with regard to salvation since I understand that God still possesses all) was denied by those were bought in 2 Peter 2:11...you can sense the contempt in the tone of that verse. So while agorazo does speak of price and ownership, we see in this verse that it does not also always include possession, which was what Tom's question was about. But it is apparently a unique exception best kept to interpreting just those matters spoken of in this verse, where possession is lacking.

God has saved me and not my neighbor because it was the eternal good pleasure of God to do so.
From the revelation we have, this is is the only reply we can give. I appreciate that. But I trust you see it does not answer the question directly. The asker always wants to know "what is it about me that so eternally pleased him to choose me and what it is about my neighbour that God did not choose him?" Certainly we all understand that this is really what the question is asking. And our answer to that must be that we are not given that answer for reasons I mentioned already. Much the way people ask why a certain evil exists, we say that God has a sufficient reason. When they ask what that reason is, we must answer that while it is know and sufficient for God to know, I don't know. Not popular, but it's also not invalid.

Hmmm, you say you don't hold to Amyraldianism, but unless I'm misunderstanding you again, you seem to maintain that Christ actually paid (atoned) for all, i.e., His death was actually sufficient for all. While I have no hesitation in affirming that the blood of Christ, in and of itself, due to the divine nature of Christ would be sufficient to atone for all, the design of the atonement did not include all. Thus, there was no actual redemption paid for the reprobate; only the elect.

Yes, I believe you are still missing something(s).

1. Hermeneutical: The clear passages always interpret the less clear. Given that the understanding of 2Pet 2:1 has been disputed by myriad people, that seems to indicate that its meaning is unclear. There are plenty of other passages which speak of the extent of the atonement that are either not disputed or less disputed. Those passages must take precedence over 2Pet 2:1 and not vice versa where all the perspicuous passages are made to conform to one's proposed understanding of 2Pet 2:1.

2. Theological:

1. The very nature of the economic Trinity is compromised by any view that purports that Christ died for all. Why? Because it was not the intention nor design of the Father to save all. The covenant made between the Father and the Son, aka: "Covenant of Redemption" or "Covenant of Peace" was that the Father decreed to save a specific number of sinners to which the Son covenanted to atone for them and by the Spirit to enable them to secure that redemption and to preserve that same number to the end to the glory of God.
2. The substitutionary nature of the atonement eliminates any possibility of a universal atonement, either complete or partial, e.g., "sufficient for all but efficient for some". This was the major supposition upon which John Owen wrote his treatise, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". If Christ actually paid the price for all then all MUST BE saved. I am confident you are familiar with his well-used synopsis For Whom Did Christ Die?. Linguistically, this is supported by such terms as huper; in behalf of, for, etc. and illustrative passages from the OT in its types and shadows within the ceremonial law, e.g., the "scape goat", etc.
3. The forensic nature of the atonement demands that Christ's passive and active obedience be understood as being "limited", i.e., designed and applied to the elect alone and not for all. It was upon the cross that God judged the sins of those whom He eternally predestined and elected to salvation. The heavenly tribunal was convened, the evidence was presented and the court ruled, pronouncing the verdict of guilty upon the Lamb of God Who was then sentenced to eternal death. That He Himself was innocent of sin secured His resurrection from the grave and His ascension into heaven and thus sits upon the throne. The forensic nature of the atonement can be likewise seen from such terms as Propitiation hilaskomai, hilasmos, Sacrifice zebach, zabach, thusia, prosphora, Reconciliation kaphar, katallage, hilaskomai, Redemption/Ransom pidyowm, pduth, goellah, goel, apolutrosis, kopher, lutron, antilutron. Thus, if Christ is actually the propitiation for all, if He actually was a sacrifice for all, if He has actually reconciled all to God, if He actually redeemed all by paying the required ransom for all, then legally, ALL must be saved and will be saved.

IF one understands 2Pet 2:1 in a non-redemptive context, then no such semantics is necessary. The common usage of agorazo is retained; purchase --> ownership. I do not find your distinction in Scripture... sorry.

Methinks the answer I gave is more than sufficient to answer the question and directly. It was simply God's good pleasure to have a people for Himself which He designed to fall and be redeemed in Christ. Should someone ask, as you suggest, "what is it about me that so eternally pleased him to choose me and what it is about my neighbour that God did not choose him?", the response should always be, "NOTHING! There was and is nothing about YOU that pleased God and which distinguished you from your neighbor." God's election is completely and solely UNconditional. Romans 9:11ff certainly is the sufficient and direct answer to such questions. The elect are saved by grace and by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, which too is a gift of God's grace. The almighty and thrice holy God has the absolute right to create some to honor and some to dishonor, both of which exalt His inexorable holiness, infinite power, and inexpressible love.

you seem to maintain that Christ actually paid (atoned) for all, i.e., His death was actually sufficient for all.
Subtle lure in your observation, but we conclude the same things. Are you equating "actual sufficiency" with atonement? I don't think so, I think you're asserting that's what I'm doing. 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.

Or maybe before I can answer you properly, I'll need to know what difference you feel there is between sufficient and actually sufficient. There is none, unless you're used to people referring to Christ's sufficient sacrifice being only theoretically sufficient? For clarity, we needn't fear that the sufficiency of the price is an actual sufficiency and not a theoretical one....it never touches efficacy. I think we're agreed and you've still popped no holes in my word usage. Try again? ;-) Or have I been actually sufficiently clear?


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.

Agorazo here isn't (yet) unclear to me, for reasons I've given. But, sure, it may be unclear to others. That does no damage to my thesis.

Those passages must take precedence over 2Pet 2:1 and not vice versa
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.

The hermeneutical rule here can not impose a meaning that does not exist in the text, which we know from other Scripture providing limitations. Alternatively, dividing out the notions of sufficiency and atonement, and payment and possession, are common among all people of all races at all times and of legitimate use in 2 Peter even if the Greeks used the same word in different contexts.

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.

I'm fine with sparring, don't get me wrong, but if you have a theory then I'd like to hear it very much.

2. Theological:
The very nature of the economic Trinity is compromised by any view that purports that Christ died for all. Why? Because it was not the intention nor design of the Father to save all. The covenant made between the Father and the Son, aka: "Covenant of Redemption" or "Covenant of Peace" was that the Father decreed to save a specific number of sinners to which the Son covenanted to atone for them and by the Spirit to enable them to secure that redemption and to preserve that same number to the end to the glory of God.

Agreed.

"If Christ actually paid the price for all then all MUST BE saved."

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.

I think you are relying too much on a notion that Christs price for the non-elect was only theoretical and not actual, for fear that the word "actual" connotes just too much efficacy. His price, we are assured is very real and it was actually paid. But wherever we want to semantically equate "actually paid" to "effectively applied through to salvation" then I agree we must digress from that usage. But I do not make that strict equivocation as you tend to....to me, there has simply always been a huge gulf between they very real value of what Christ tendered and how it was applied. Other Calvinist theology accounts for this. So I have less fear of the word usage than you do it seems, and I'm here describing the differentiations which, obviously, to me are legitimate.


"If one understands 2Pet 2:1 in a non-redemptive context, then no such semantics is necessary. The common usage of agorazo is retained; purchase --> ownership. I do not find your distinction in Scripture... sorry. "

Yes you do, Pilgrim. You find that distinction in 2 Peter 2:1. Or, as I've already requested, I'm curious to hear your explanation.


[God has the absolute right to create some to honor and some to dishonor

Absolutely agreed. Except to say that verse and the preceeding 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.

But the question under consideration has little to do with that. The question people ask is, what is it about me that he opted, in his divine right, to make me a vessel of honour and another to dishonour? You see, you still have not addressed the question, only shifted again. And you will never be able to provide the kind of response that the questioner wants, which was my answer; there is no such answer. But you said something interesting, that seems to indicate a revelation that in fact God saw NOTHING in me that he would save me. My idea has been that we are not told that is is something, anything, or nothing. We're not informed at all about the foundation, but you make clear that it is NOTHING about them. I would like to know where you got that from? Or if there is no revelation, then I would hesitate to make a conclusion that lack of revelation to us = NOTHING. I'm not saying for certain that it isn't nothing, I'm saying I never got that info.

Sproul says:

"Why did God save me?

I know of no more difficult a theological question to deal with than this one. I've been studying theology for many years, and I still can't come up with any exhaustive reason to explain why God would save me, or anyone else for that matter."

Neither Sproul nor anyone I've yet read says conclusively that, despite the exhaustive efforts of theologians, they can concretely conclude it was NOTHING about us.

(On my wordiness, I'm not trying to win anything by being too wordy or exhaustive, I'm just still into the subtleties of the discussion here and the importance of the clarifications...you've still got me thinking, so kudos from me...this is part of the reason I still like this site. Continue if you want, but I wouldn't charge you with surrendering anything if you didn't ;-)

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 ;-)

In discussing my humble analogy of coupon redemption, Pilgrim has raised the concern about how the payment for sin had to at the same time be full propitiation for sin. Apparently, my story lends the idea that a sufficient payment for sin for the non elect is equated with a real, applied payment, which of course raises the spectre of at least a modified form of universalism. Yikes.

I wondered what about the story wasn't working that would give rise to the concern, and I think I figured it out, and how to fix it.

The problem is one of currency. In my story, the landlord lays down hard cash in the exact amount of the coupon...real cash, out of pocket, paid in full.

From that, I attempted to show how a thief might abscond with the goods after payment had been made. That's how it was seen by Pilgrim (and other presumably). Though I tried to show that the money paid was only sufficient funds to procure the goods that, in the case of the non elect, are never transferred, nevertheless I think the fact that hard currency paying in full for the item makes for confusion. Certainly as Calvinists we only ever mean to say that the price was never applied to the eternally lost, only sufficient. Since my story spoke of full funds actually applied, for the value of the coupon, with the notion of possession/non-possesion coming later, I think the analogy was too weak.

The problem is that cash is breakable into discrete units....when you want to pay for an item of $29.98, then you pay not $90989.99, but $29.98. Who would plop down a whole bunch more when only exactly enough is needed? So when my landlord did pay the right amount in full then the question arises, how could I talk of a price sufficient to pay for everyone, and yet not really paid?

Christs sacrifice had immense value. We say it was sufficient to cover everyones sin, though it was only applied to cover the sins of the elect and it did so with great precision...all the elect were perfectly covered.

The only way the analogy will work is if I adjust the currency from a breakable kind of unit, like cash, into a singularly valueable unit, like a diamond, or pearl. It is as if my landlord only had one thing of value in his possession to offer when he went to the store to buy the coupon, a huge jewel worth millions. The store clerk would say, but sir, you could buy the whole country of people a turkey with this? Shall I dole out millions of coupons? No, he was only there to buy one coupon for me and the jewel, unlike the currency of cash, was indivisible. God had only one Son to offer, and Christ has only one body from which to shed blood, one indivisible body.

In this way, it's easier to see how the price of the sacrifice was sufficient for so many more and actually given up, but only applied by the specific will and plan of the landlord to the account of the specially chosen.

From there, the story picks up again, with God the Father gathering his possession of what is counted as his only, which by the work of the Spirit is assured even though the price would have sufficed for him to collect them all.

If this doesn't at least help solve that problem, well then I'm still open to suggestions ;-)

Barry

Your distinction between possessing a book and having the right to possess (physically) the book are duly noted. I do comprehend the difference. However, what I am defending is what I believe to be the biblical and confessional view of the atoning work of Christ where this distinction does not and indeed cannot apply. If the "price" was paid then the object belongs to the purchaser and in the case of Christ paying the price to the Father, then whosoever the price was paid for WILL be brought to Christ by the Spirit and saved eternally, infallibly so. As I labored to point out, the persons of the Trinity are one. The Father predestinates, the Son pays the price for those whom the Father elects, and the Holy Spirit brings them to Christ and preserves them to the end. The "price" IS the atonement and it accomplishes that which it was designed to do; save all those whom the Father has determined to save (Rom 8:29,30; et al).

The Arminians at Dordt insisted that the "price" was paid for ALL but not all are saved. The reason given was that they maintained that the redemption "purchased" was not received by all. What you are arguing for seems all too similar to the section of the Remonstrance. There were a very small number of men in the Westminster Assembly who rejected Amyraldianism but who, nevertheless, held to a type of universal atonement. Although they rejected some of the details of Amyraut's position, they held that Christ died for all, i.e., He paid the price for all in His death. Their position was not accepted as one can plainly see from what the Assembly wrote in the Confession.

Sorry, but I will have to be insistent in my position that God 'saw' nothing in the elect that would commend them to God's good pleasure in contradistinction to the reprobate. If God were to 'look upon' the elect in their naturally fallen state (Infralapsarianism) or even before the decree to create them (Supralapsarianism), what would God possibly 'see' in them which would please Him and not 'see' in those who would be passed by? All of mankind is created in God's image, so that surely doesn't make the difference. All as fallen are totally depraved and stand guilty before God and worthy of eternal damnation, so that isn't a distinguishing mark. And the list could go on for some length. Why the infinitely wise and righteous God chose some and rejected others is known only to Himself. This is one of those instances, I believe, where the finite cannot grasp the Infinite for it is not revealed (Deut 29:29). HOWEVER, we can know what is revealed and that is that God set His love upon some according to His good pleasure, according to His eternal counsel. That God loved me from all eternity for reasons known only to Himself is more than enough information for me. Why the eternal electing love of God isn't sufficient to answer your question is a mystery to me. But it is more than comforting to both my mind and soul.

Pilgrim,

Thanks for taking so much time to consider my thoughts, often spelled out here in more length than you'd have liked. I'm going to return now to Tom's question having considered these things and hopefully not do any injustice by placing words in your mouth you didn't mean to say. But I think there's enough here now for me to have sharpened my iron a bit, plus still have some more to sharpen, so that's the takeaway. Feel free to respond further, and I might jump back in again. Otherwise, for Tom's sake, I'm going to wrap up some thoughts.

Tom,

If you're still reading, I will put my summary first, then give more detailed thoughts on those summarized items then a conclusion.


To Pilgrim,

SUMMARY
I take Dr. North’s answer to Tom's question to be that bought never meant bought really, so we don’t have to worry about how the false teachers are not redeemed. Your response seems (to me) to be that there are two linguistic realms in which we can refer to bought, one the day to day commercial realm, the other theological/salvific. Because these two realms are so separate when we speak of them, we can use the same word and mean two different things, as if bought means one thing in a world called commerce and another in a world called salvation. To me your answer has an important similiarity to Dr. Norths. Both seem to say bought never means bought when we’re talking about 2 Peter 2:1. If benefit of the doubt is given to you, it’s reasonable that bought used by Peter is describing some kind of mitigated bought that, whatever it means, does not result in God taking into his kingdom those teacher. Since yours and Dr. Norths approaches don’t grant that Peter meant bought in the commercial sense (the only sense there really is, there really are no separate linguistic schemes) then I am not prepared to give you the benefit of that doubt. Peter is not dealt with quite squarely enough for my liking. I dealt more squarely with Peters use of bought, but, without realizing it, reworked Peter’s ‘bought’ to only say ‘sufficient to be bought’, which is not what he said.

EXPANDING ON MY SUMMARY

THE TROUBLE MY ANALOGY
Your tenacity over keeping Unconditional Election clear of the pollution of universalism achieved something for me, that in wrangling with 2 Peter 2:1 we will have to always be crystal clear as to how our comparisons must always line up with election so folks don’t confuse our argument as being the same as any kind of universalism. You were confused by that. If we fail, the perils of modified Calvinism lie in waiting. My problem with my analogy is that either I speak of the price being actually laid down for the redeemable coupon, which could, as you have rightly pointed out, be translated as at least a hypothetical purchase if not a real-value purchase of the item. This must be interpreted as meaning that Christs sacrifice was to any degree a real price applied to a purchase covering their sin. You criticized this view saying that I can’t speak of purchase without meaning saved, which tips the scale to universalism. As Tom points out in his question, we do not assume that the false teachers are brethren so the question is unanswered.

If I amend my story to say the currency used to pay the price was an indivisible jewel and not cash, then I have solved the problem of payment of their sins since the excess value was never applied to them, but have trouble trying to show how they could be spoken of as “bought”, when they never were actually bought. I would be interpreting Peter to mean “bought, but not really” or “sufficient to be bought”, which is not wrong…we Calvinists believe that. It just isn’t what Peter said, that’s all.

You never raised that point against me because of how it might offend another doctrine, preferring to emphasize that my “sufficient to be paid” might be construed as just “paid”. But if I invert your criticism by taking my own words at my word, that bought only means “sufficient to be bought” and point it back to 2 Peter, it’s devastating. I have no place to rewrite what Peter wrote. I think this criticism really shows the weakness in my example the best. I’m my own worst critic sometimes ;-)

YOUR ANALOGY
You said this as your answer to Toms question:

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 have some problems with your analogy. Ruth here is equated to the false brethren who, by your analogy, go with the purchase of the land without her soul actually being saved because the context is not about saving souls. By this analogy you answer Tom by saying “bought” only refers to saving a soul when the verse is speaking about saved souls and not speaking about saved souls when speaking either commercially, or about the non-elect. If you take the commercial sense of bought in Ruth and apply it to 2 Peter 2:1, you mean that Christ commercially bought them and I don’t what that means. Boaz actually took possession of Ruth and the land into his realm. Does Christ likewise take these heathen into his realm? The example of Boaz is a Christ figure, and we are his possession. Both Ruth and the land were purchased in the same sense, Ruth being part of the consideration in the deal as much as the land. When you apply that example to 2 Peter now, you want to claim the right to use “bought” in a sense of a price paid yet without there being any salvific redemption. Isn’t that question begging since Toms question was, how can there be bought without redemption? Your answer is, because they were bought without redemption. That is no answer. You have to still explain what, then, was bought by the Lord in 2 Peter 2:1? Going back to the Ruth analogy, suppose we say that ‘bought’ only applies to the turf they are on, ie the general groundwork of the New Testament Church and, like Ruth, we find false teachers on it. But that doesn’t work since the the story in Ruth is that she, too, was bought and redeemed and the reference in 2 Peter is not just that the groundwork is bought, or even that the faithful around them are bought, the false brethren are ‘bought’. Ruth was redeemed, not cast out…she was part of the purchase.

Even if I grant you that bought can mean without salvation, then you may be contradicting yourself since that is exactly the charge laid against my example….you would not permit me to speak of the false teachers as bought without also meaning that their sins were actually paid for. Here you want to do exactly that, and then say “but I only mean in the commercial sense”. Commercial sense of buying what? The price for their sin? Square one then. What was bought?

I think the reason Dr. North’s article appeals to you, as it does to me, as he argues that while the word bought is used, it never means bought, and he tidily brushes the word bought away completely, which brings me to my third problem.

DR. LONGS ARTICLE.

Dr. Long takes 2 Peter 2:1

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
to say:

“There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who created them and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

My problem with Dr. North’s exegesis is that by the time he has done, the notion of bought, agorazo, is no longer even present in the verse! It seems as though it is such a problem that the best thing to do is rid ourselves of it. Tempting, but I am troubled by how he stretches the connection vis a vis Deutoronomy. Peter had the other words at his disposal to use, but unlike Dr. North, he did not use them…in fact, the other words were specifically excluded and only agorazo was brought in. Very troubling to me that Peter would use the one word that he specifically did not actually mean simply because of a linguistic trick of shortening up the reference.
If the idea is that God, like Boaz, takes possession of the property by making a purchase, but then we say God needs to make no purchase because it was all his by divine right having created the property, then we would not speak of payment in this way. The reason Peter speaks of payment is in reference to the shed blood, which brings us back to Toms question.

CONCLUSION
How can bought not mean bought in the sense of full redemption? I’ve tried two ways; 1) to show that money is shown without being handed over, which fails, and 2) to show how the money is actually handed over but thieves stole the purchased goods, which is troubling to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, or at least the efficacy of the price paid.


Others try by linguistic efforts to show that bought doesn’t really mean bought at all. This is not necessarily illegitemate, they just need to show how in some other sense they were bought. And I don't believe anyone is doing that sufficiently.

So for now I'm dropping these thoughts and have another thought as to how they are bought and not redeemed; Peter is being sarcastic. I'll post that in a separate response and will like to hear responses to that.