-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2 Peter 2:1 and Particular Redemption
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
So, what did that fella say Ken????
Explain it to me please...
KenH
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
Great article!
ScottEmerson
Active Member
One of the problems with his article that I can name off hand is the authors use of despotes, which is translated Master.
God can be Master of the universe even if they don't see Him as such. Even though they didn't make him their Master, He still is the Master. In other words, just because a person things one thing or another doesn't change a fact. The author seems to say that if Christ is their personal Master, when Master could merely be what he IS.
(I really hope that makes sense. It makes sense to me, at least)
God can be Master of the universe even if they don't see Him as such. Even though they didn't make him their Master, He still is the Master. In other words, just because a person things one thing or another doesn't change a fact. The author seems to say that if Christ is their personal Master, when Master could merely be what he IS.
(I really hope that makes sense. It makes sense to me, at least)
F
ForumChaplain
Guest
Of course, it makes sense..
Interesting article... much food for thought!... Brother Glen
Ray Berrian
New Member
These ' . . . false prophets' are hardly the kind of persons that we would have recommend to other/non-Christians, in hopes that they would find Christ or be found of Him. 'Damnable heresies' fall far short of a good message, sermon or homily. And yet Christ tells us, through the Apostle Peter that He had 'bought them.' All they had to do was to turn from their sins and sincerely invite Christ into their lives.
The Greek word, bought {agorazo} (agoradzo) suggests 'to go to market,' 'to purchase' or 'to redeem or buy, says, Dr. James Strong--"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible." God had bought their souls, but they had not yielded their wills to His sovereignty as God and Savior, and probably never did.
Again, clear proof as in I John 2:2 that Christ on the Cross died for every human being and not the alleged, 'hand picked few.'
Dr. Paul P. Enns (B.R.E., Winnipeg Bible College; Th.M., Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary says, in the text, "The Moody Handbook of Theology" on page 327 at the bottom, 'Second Peter 2:1 indicates that Christ died for the false prophets who were "denying the Master who bought them." The context indicates these are heretics doomed to destruction, yet it is said of them "the Master bought them." This militates against the limited atonement view.'
'
The Greek word, bought {agorazo} (agoradzo) suggests 'to go to market,' 'to purchase' or 'to redeem or buy, says, Dr. James Strong--"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible." God had bought their souls, but they had not yielded their wills to His sovereignty as God and Savior, and probably never did.
Again, clear proof as in I John 2:2 that Christ on the Cross died for every human being and not the alleged, 'hand picked few.'
Dr. Paul P. Enns (B.R.E., Winnipeg Bible College; Th.M., Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary says, in the text, "The Moody Handbook of Theology" on page 327 at the bottom, 'Second Peter 2:1 indicates that Christ died for the false prophets who were "denying the Master who bought them." The context indicates these are heretics doomed to destruction, yet it is said of them "the Master bought them." This militates against the limited atonement view.'
'