2 Peter 2:1

[grafted branch]

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.

I understand T.U.L.I.P. and believe it is correct doctrine. I have been struggling with 2 Peter 2:1 and in particular the false teachers who deny the Lord that bought them.

I examined Calvin’s commentary on this verse and it references Jude 1:4. In Jude 1:4 it states certain men crept in unawares, who were before ordained to this condemnation. But some people will insist that “ordained” is referring to Gods foreknowledge only and not limited atonement.

So here is what I have been looking at;

In Exodus 15:13 the Israelites are called redeemed (from Egypt) and in Exodus 15:16 they are described as being purchased. If this redemption is pointing to the redemption accomplished by Christ then this clearly is pointing to limited atonement because no others were redeemed, only Israel. If this redemption was only referring specifically to Israel being set free from literal Egypt then 2 Peter 2:1 could be referring to this. In Deuteronomy 32:5-6 the perverse and crooked generation is asked “is he thy father that hath bought thee?”. In Acts 2:36-40 Peter tells the house of Israel that the promise is unto them, as many as the Lord our God shall call; and in verse 40 they are differentiated from the untoward (crooked) generation. Also the distinction that they are not all Israel which are of Israel is made in Romans 9:6.

So I think 2 Peter 2:1 could be referring to the Nation Israel that was redeemed (from Egypt) and there certainly were Jews or false teachers during those times which were denying that Jesus was the messiah.

Does this seem like a plausible explanation or does anyone have another interpretation?

 

[com7fy8]

As a guest, not an official Calvinist >

I do believe in God-controlled destiny of people.

And if God is committed to keeping a person, that person will be kept, in any case.

So . . . I think your question is, if a saved person cannot lose salvation, then how can it be that a person purchased by Christ's blood can get into condemnation, like can seem to be meant in 2 Peter 2:1??

Peter says they even deny "the Lord that bought them," we have in this verse. And yes Paul says that if we deny Him, He will deny us.

My opinion is if God's word really means it is unconditionally impossible for a child of God to lose one's salvation, then this being "bought" could be related to 1 John 2:2 < in this scripture we are told that Jesus is the propitiation for all. To me, among other things, this means Jesus was loving any and all people, while on the cross. But ones have not obeyed this. He made the payment, enough for the whole world, but not all have cashed in. But I understand this explanation might conflict with official Calvinist belief about "limited atonement", or more clarification is needed and I have offered a part.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Greek NT Scholar Thomas R. Schreiner addresses this passage a bit here:

“Problematic Texts” for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles by Thomas R. Schreiner

 

[grafted branch]

Good Day,

Greek NT Scholar Thomas R. Schreiner addresses this passage a bit here:

“Problematic Texts” for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles by Thomas R. Schreiner

Thanks for the informative link.

The author here rejects the idea that the buying is non-soteriological; and suggests that this interpretation faces sever lexical problems. He then cites that there are no instances in the New Testament where the Greek word group, when it is associated with the death of Christ, has a non-soteriological meaning.

The word “Lord” <1203> is not the usual term used for the Lord Jesus in the New Testament, so it could be argued that the word “Lord” in this verse is referring to the Father. This point, unfortunately, wasn’t addressed.

I do however agree with the article in that redemption when associated with the death or blood of Christ does have a soteriological meaning. So for me it would seem to come down to whether Exodus 15:16, where the Israelites are bought, can be viewed as solely soteriological or not.

 

[JM]

It's a good question but one that is asked A LOT. There is no 'silver bullet' that'll kill the 'Calvinist Werewolf.' Reformed Christians believe in tota scriptura which means all of scripture must be considered, a worldview must be formed by the renewing of your mind in accordance with scripture and theology is built and struggled with from there.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[grafted branch]

It's a good question but one that is asked A LOT. There is no 'silver bullet' that'll kill the 'Calvinist Werewolf.' Reformed Christians believe in tota scriptura which means all of scripture must be considered, a worldview must be formed by the renewing of your mind in accordance with scripture and theology is built and struggled with from there.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I looked at all the videos and gained some insight by the various views; I liked that the 2nd video gave a step by step rebuttal of Dr. James White. I’m not sure but I think the 3rd video was James White, in any case the 3rd video is close to what I have been thinking when it comes to interpreting 2 Peter2:1.

I do believe in tota scriptura, sola scriptura and OSAS. I plan to invest some time over the next several weeks to get a better understanding of 2 Peter 2:1. I don’t want to wade through interpretations that promote free will or universal/provisional atonement.

Do you have any other recommendations or web sites that go into in depth detail on the reformed views of 2 Peter 2:1?