Featured 2 Peter 2:1

Oh, those of us who believe the Bible just call it redemption.

 

I have it.

 

Have you read it yet? If so, what are your thoughts?

 

As to what "Denying the master who bought them" means in 2 Peter 2...

We should note that many scholars who defend “unlimited atonement” also think that believers cannot lose their salvation. But a problem also arises for their interpretation. The verse seems to say that eschatological judgment will be the destiny of those who were bought by the Lord, who were members of the church, who, apparently, acknowledged Jesus Christ at some point as their Lord and Savior. The verse does not refer to people in general who are the potential beneficiaries of Christ’s death. It speaks of false teachers who were part of Peter’s church and had now rejected the gospel they first embraced. The entire discussion on limited atonement in this verse cannot be segregated from the issue of whether believers can truly apostatize. That is an issue we will face again in this chapter since Peter spoke of those who “have left the straight way” (2:15), of those who have escaped the clutches of the world through knowing Christ but have subsequently been entangled and conquered by the world again (2:20), of those who have known the way of righteousness but have now turned from it (2:21). The issue raised by these verses will be discussed in 2:17–22. We must see, however, that 2:1 raises fundamentally the same question.

The easiest solution, in some ways, would be to take the verse straightforwardly. Some who submit to Christ’s lordship subsequently deny him and are therefore damned forever. This is now the view of most commentators, and it has the virtue of providing a lucid and uncomplicated understanding of the text. At one level the proposed interpretation is correct. Some members of the Christian community had departed from the Christian faith. The issue is whether those who are genuinely Christians can commit apostasy. Peter taught elsewhere that those who are called by God’s grace are effectually called by his own glory and excellence (2 Pet 1:3), and 1 Pet 1:5 clearly says that those who belong to God will be preserved by his power through faith so that they will possess eschatological salvation. When we add to this many other texts that teach that those whom God has called will never perish (e.g., Rom 8:28–39; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24), it suggests that we should consider another interpretation. I would suggest that Peter used phenomenological language. In other words, he described the false teachers as believers because they made a profession of faith and gave every appearance initially of being genuine believers. Peter did not refer to those who had been outside the community of faith but to those who were part of the church and perhaps even leaders among God’s people. Their denial of Jesus Christ reveals that they did not truly belong to God, even though they professed faith. Peter said that they were bought by Jesus Christ, in the sense that they gave every indication initially of genuine faith. In every church there are members who appear to be believers and who should be accepted as believers according to the judgment of charity. As time elapses and difficulties arise, it becomes apparent that they are wolves in the flock (Acts 20:29–30), that though they called on Jesus as Lord their disobedience shows that he never knew them (Matt 7:21–23), that they are like the seed sown on rocky or thorny ground that initially bears fruit but dries up and dies when hard times come (Matt 13:20–22).​

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 330–332. (Emphasis mine)
​

If this phrase is to be taken as an argument for unlimited atonement, Peter would be contradicting himself and scripture. So, in saying these false teachers are denying the master who bought them, he is essentially describing a square circle--something that is a "no-thing;" something that cannot exist.

The Archangel.

 

Shreiner is so good. I was in his Sunday School class in the mid 1980's. He was one who simply asked me questions as I attempted to argue free will salvation. He never really pushed his theology. Instead he asked questions I couldn't answer.

 

I am sure if you read his book that your questions will be answered. I think he addresses some of these verses in his rebuttal to Dr. White in video below.

Ken Wilson Rebuts James White - YouTube

 

What is falseology to you, Van?

Here's the passage you are referring to.
*John 6:35-40*

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

 

I just quoted the whole passage. Can you not read what it says? There is no obfuscation. There is only you, refusing to define "falseology" and refusing to actually observe the text in John 6.

If the ransom is for all, universally, then Jesus need not even be recorded in John 6 stating that he keeps only those whom the Father gives him. Secondly, all would be kept if all were paid for and ransomed. Yet, here you are saying taint so.

 

I am not copy and pasting anything. I am just providing the links for his book and his rebuttals to Dr. White.

As I said in my original post, I really don't enjoy going back and forth on Calvinism. In my opinion Dr. Wilson has pretty much summed up the whole argument for me, and for some others who have actually read his book.

Blessings....

 

To answer your question with more clarification, I am not sure if Dr. Wilson directly address each and every verse you mentioned in his book. But I am pretty sure these verses are addressed in his talks with Leighton Flowers on YouTube, and that’s why I sent you the link. I will give you one of his quotes that may relate to some of the passages.

Election: “God’s election does not follow Gnostic teaching of the unilateral elect and damned based on Stoic eternal decrees controlling every detail in the universe. Christ died for every human being (not solely for the elect). All other major branches of Christianity stand firmly with the early church in these teachings against pagan Stoic, Gnostic, Neoplatonic, and Manichaean divine unilateral determinism” (Dr. Ken Wilson; ‘The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism’ p. 115-116).

Then on page 116 he says “Early Christianity taught GRACE.”

God offers salvation equally,
Residual free choice response,
Atonement universally,
Conditional election based on foreknowledge, and
Eternal life for those who respond in faith

Page 118,

Beginning with “God is sovereign” is not a Christian, but a Stoic foundation of philosophical theology. All other major Christian groups outside of Calvinism hold forth as primary what I believe to be a more important element of theology: “God is love.”