Did Christ "buy" false prophets? 2Pe. 2:1

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Senior

and man are not equals and man cannot decline being apart of a covenant with God.


What do you mean? Irresistably, no. But non-elect have an option. If I give someone the gospel call and he says, "no thanks" then didn't he decline to be in covenant with God???

The reprobate is in Covenant with God. Though the reprobate says "no thanks" they are still in their sin under the Covenant of Works. Everyone is federally represented in the Covenant with Adam or Christ, the Second Adam.


Puritan Board Senior
Sorry, was assuming that you knew these things enough that I didn't have to explain it like I would do a Dispensational. And, you asked simple questions, i can only give you simple answers. But, again, sorry to disapoint you.

Ontological, yes. Economical no. Was that to simplistic?


No problem. Not disappointed. Should have made myself more clear. Different definitions of the covenant can provide different views of how they work. This is the problem with Shepherd.

Can the economical contradict the ontological? If they are co-equal in the ontological (essense) how can they not be in the economical? The economic only provides the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, otherwise this is subordinationism.


Puritan Board Senior
From my understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, this covenant is an "eternal" covenant between God the Father and God the Son. The key is that it is an eternal covenant (whatever that may mean). Now if you were to argue a subordination based on the office of Redeemer, which it appears Sproul is arguing based on Christ's humiliation, I think that would fit better in the Covenant of Grace, assuming the CoG to be the working out of the CoR.

I have read Call to Grace three or four times know and Shepherd turns out to be a heretic everytime. Enjoy the book.


Puritan Board Senior
what do you think this means:


." His meat and his drink were to do the will of the father. he was commissioned by the father to come into the world for the work of redemption in the Godhead itself, one sends the other, and the one who sends is said to be greater that the one who is sent in terms of economic distinctions and the structure by which the Godhead works.


The statement relates to Christ's humiliation and His office as Redeemer. There is no question regarding this point. The question is does this relate to the CoR or the CoG? Plus, though Christ "voluntarily" subordinated Himself to the will of the Father, is God the Son inherently subordinate to God the Father in the economic Trinity in order to meet the definition of a Covenant (in particular the CoR), in that the parties are not equal.

re: shepard: good, then I will be expecting your responses. I want to post (very) small chapter summary in another forum and see how people interact. I only read the intro and he says that (paraphrase): Tulip is important and is true, but the most important thing of reformed theology is CT.

I would assume that you would agree with Luther. But would Shepards view on this be "heretical?"

And, can you help me? Tell me in advance exactly what is heretical from your impression of the book.

Our Justification is based on an "active, obedient" faith.


Puritan Board Senior
But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in "modes of subsistence," as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence.

This quote is a good one. It brings focus to the two Covenants; CoR and CoG. Since the CoR is a Covenant made in eternity between the Godhead then you can not say that a Covenant can't be between equals. Since the CoG is that working out of the CoR in history, a voluntary subordinationism based on modes of operation, can be argued in the Covenant of Grace.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
From my understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, this covenant is an "eternal" covenant between God the Father and God the Son. The key is that it is an eternal covenant (whatever that may mean).

Wayne I know you like to take the WCF at face value on understanding these terms. Here is what they said in the Standards on the CoR and CoG to maybe clarify, because I think you may need to add this into your conceptions of the church visible:

Sum of Saving Knowledge: (Head 2, paragraphs 1-3)

The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of grace. Hos. xiii. 9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.

I. Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began.

II. The sum of the [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.

III. For the accomplishment of this [b:c59a72950a]covenant of redemption[/b:c59a72950a], and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the [i:c59a72950a]covenant of grace[/i:c59a72950a], Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.

(Make sure that we are on the same page - the WCF does in fact talk about both the CoG and the CoR.) I thought this may help clarify in the discussion....


Puritan Board Senior
Now, I believe that some foreign divines, and some in England, carried out this covenant form of theology in detail in a manner that might be called anthropomorphic. Yet it is evident that if God's dealings with man are ethical, if in their essential nature the system of redemption grew out of the relations of persons, and if the process consisted in the way of teaching, of commandments, of promises, of threatenings, of the presence of motives addressed to the will, and of determinate actions of form and character, then, in its last analysis, all the dealings of God must necessarily come back to this form of a covenant. [b:00acdef5b3]What is the essence of a covenant between equals except a mutual understanding and the agreement of two wills ? What is the essential nature of a covenant formed between a superior and inferior but this--a conditional promise?[/b:00acdef5b3] The promise is a reward on the condition of obedience, associated with threatening of punishment on the condition of disobedience. It follows from this, necessarily, that if you begin with an eternity, an eternal plan of God must be a mutual one in which the three Persons come to an understanding and knowledge of that common purpose in which they distribute among themselves reciprocally their several functions. Then when God comes to deal with any intelligent creature, whether it be an angel or a man, under any circumstances, if he commands or promises, or if he threatens, you have there all the elements of a covenant, because a, covenant is simply a mutual understanding, and the covenant imposed by a superior upon an inferior is simply a conditional promise. Hence we have the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace.

A.A. Hodge

This may help in explaining the CoR being between equals.


Puritan Board Doctor
2 Peter 2:1

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.

As I study this I wonder if this speaks "clearly" to Lordship salvation? Meaning that a false teacher is one who may "claim" Christ but deny Him as Lord of their life?

The Greek word used for Lord here is only used 10 times in the NT and each time it is used it always means "one who has supreme authority".

Alos "who bought them" translates like "a slave master who is OWED submission" from those he has purchased.

I can only find four other possible ways to see this text.

1) They are saved but have lost their salvation (something I believe the scriptures teach does NOT happen.)

2) The Lord created them but they are not saved. (This takes away from the word "bought" which translates "redeemed".

3) They just "claimed" to be saved. (Requires you to read into the text).

4) They were redeemed by Christ's death but chose NOT to accept it. (This is armenian, which I am not).

So am I correct in thinking this verse tells us that there are MANY false teachers who will discuss Jesus and "His ways" but do not feel a need to submit their lives to Him totally and completely? And if so, they are clearly NOT Christians?
Not open for further replies.