2 Peter 2:1 and Particular Redemption

www.aomin.org/2PE21.html

[ September 23, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Here is the conclusion of the 18 page article:

In Conclusion

We are left then with two possible understandings to the text:

1. The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate.

2. The term is being used non redemptively, hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and hence commanded their allegiance.

Since Scripture is consistent with itself it would seem that the only viable option is that the text is to be understood non redemptively. The preservation of the saints is a clearly revealed truth and is maintained on the basis of Scripture’s teaching on the nature of the atonement (Heb. 7-10) and the resultant preservation of the saints (John 6:37-44). It is our contention, therefore, that a non redemptive context is consistent with sola scriptura (scripture alone) and tota scriptura (all of scripture).

There are many passages in Scripture that require effort on our part to fully study and examine. Some are difficult to interpret, but such difficulty is not an excuse for failing to do our homework. We are to “search the Scriptures” diligently that we may grow in grace and knowledge of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

It would appear that the only people that can appeal to this text exegetically and contextually are those who understand it non redemptively or those historic Arminians who believe you can lose your salvation. Those who believe in eternal security (whether Reformed or non Reformed) may not nor cannot appeal to this text with a salvific context. To do so imposes a view on the text that is more eisegetical than exegetical. It is inconsistent to say that the Master bought them but does not own them in order to maintain the general atonement position. In fact, I would argue that this text is not a battleground between Reformed and non-Reformed over the extent of the atonement at all, but rather a battleground between those who believe in eternal security and those who do not. If one desires to object to particular redemption then one will have to appeal to another text, for one cannot consistently do so on the basis of 2 Peter 2:1.