2 Peter 2:1

[Revmitchell]

General Redemption meaning Christ died for every individual, not just the elect, is a lie.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

I have read through all the posts on this thread going back and forth on Calvinism. I was going to give my two cents but I have pretty much given up over debating over Calvinism.

What it all comes down to for me is that after reading Dr. Wilson’s book below on the origins of Augustinian-Calvinism, and the fact that no scholar worldwide, including Dr. James White will even consider debating him, this says a lot.

Dr. Wilson is a worldwide expert on Augustine and lays out a very compelling case against the philosophy of Calvinism. In fact, in my opinion, his book along with the other two destroy this philosophy.

The reason I bring this up is that I would encourage both sides on this debate to at least give Dr. Wilson’s book a try, for frankly, it does get old hearing the same arguments over a few verses year after year. I think if the debate was on the roots of Augustinian doctrine and what the church believed before Augustine, I think that would be interesting.
View attachment 6586
Blessings to both sides…..

I have it.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I have it.

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

 

[The Archangel]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Folks, did you see an apology for not addressing the reason Christ bought those heading for swift destruction? Neither did I.
Folks, did you see an apology for not asking me to address the reason @Van thinks Christ bought those heading for swift destruction? Neither did I. If Van was actually interested in trying to understand the verse, various posters have already explained it for him.

All these posters do is throw up a smoke screen of obfuscation. They ask questions as if answers have not been provided. They refuse to engage in truth.

And we all love you too, Van.

And now for the umpteenth time, Christ dying for all humanity INCLUDES Christ dying for those who became His Sheep. Does He died for those to be saved, and those never to be saved, ring a bell? Did any of the above post address the actual position presented? Nope.

So finally I have an answer to the question I asked. The Good Shepherd did give His life for those headed for swift destruction, but they are not His sheep.
So now we have one of Van's famous translations. John 10:11 should clearly read, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep (and Hitler, Mao, Putin and everyone else in the entire world)" Never mind that this eviscerates the verse of all meaning. Never mind that it denies the plain teaching of John 6:39 and much of John 17. @Van has his special debating technique which is to be as unpleasant as possible to everyone who disagrees with him in the hope that people will put him on 'ignore' and then he can flatter himself that no one can answer him

 

[AustinC]

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.

 

[Van]

If anyone is interested here is the link for Dr. Wilson's book.

https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Augustinian-Calvinism-Ken-Wilson/dp/108280035X/

How does he interpret 1 Corinthians 3:1. Why did Paul use spiritual milk when speaking as to men of flesh?
How does he interpret James 2:5, did God choose those rich in faith, those heirs to the promise to those who love God?
How does he interpret Matthew 23:13, did those actually in the process of entering the kingdom, and thus having the spiritual ability to do so, get prevented from going in by false teachers?
How does he interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does God choose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth?
How does he interpret 2 Peter 2:1, did Christ buy those heading for swift destruction.
How does he interpret 1 Timothy 2:6, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all, or just the elect.

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Van]

So finally I have an answer to the question I asked. The Good Shepherd did give His life for those headed for swift destruction, but they are not His sheep.
So now we have one of Van's famous translations. John 10:11 should clearly read, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep (and Hitler, Mao, Putin and everyone else in the entire world)" Never mind that this eviscerates the verse of all meaning. Never mind that it denies the plain teaching of John 6:39 and much of John 17. @Van has his special debating technique which is to be as unpleasant as possible to everyone who disagrees with him in the hope that people will put him on 'ignore' and then he can flatter himself that no one can answer him

Did this poster address Christ providing the means of reconciliation? Nope

Will the @Van unnecessary comment be deleted? Nope

Does John 6:39 support falselogy? Nope

Is there anything in scripture including John 17 that supports falselogy? Nope A person must read into the text something never actually found.

 

[Michael Hollner]

How does he interpret 1 Corinthians 3:1. Why did Paul use spiritual milk when speaking as to men of flesh?
How does he interpret James 2:5, did God choose those rich in faith, those heirs to the promise to those who love God?
How does he interpret Matthew 23:13, did those actually in the process of entering the kingdom, and thus having the spiritual ability to do so, get prevented from going in by false teachers?
How does he interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does God choose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth?
How does he interpret 2 Peter 2:1, did Christ buy those heading for swift destruction.
How does he interpret 1 Timothy 2:6, did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all, or just the elect.

Inquiring minds want to know!

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

 

[Van]

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

So you will not answer the question, and copy and paste his views?

 

[Van]

Did this poster address Christ providing the means of reconciliation? Nope

Will the @Van unnecessary comment be deleted? Nope

Does John 6:39 support falselogy? Nope

Is there anything in scripture including John 17 that supports falselogy? Nope A person must read into the text something never actually found.

What does John 6:39 say? That those transferred into Christ's spiritual body will not be cast out? Did anyone say this is not true. So yet another obviously false claim.

 

[Van]

John 10:11 should clearly read, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep (and Hitler, Mao, Putin and everyone else in the entire world)" Never mind that this eviscerates the verse of all meaning.

The good shepherd gave His life for "the sheep." So if "the sheep in this verse refers to those God chooses to place in Christ, that truth does not eviscerate the fact Christ's death was a ransom for all which included those heading for swift destruction.

 

[AustinC]

Did this poster address Christ providing the means of reconciliation? Nope

Will the @Van unnecessary comment be deleted? Nope

Does John 6:39 support falselogy? Nope

Is there anything in scripture including John 17 that supports falselogy? Nope A person must read into the text something never actually found.

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.”

 

[Van]

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.”

Yet another obfuscation post taking no position.

What does John 6:39 say? That those transferred into Christ's spiritual body will not be cast out? Did anyone say this is not true. So yet another obviously false claim.

The good shepherd gave His life for "the sheep" (John 10:11) So if "the sheep in this verse refers to those God chooses to place in Christ, that truth does not eviscerate the fact Christ's death was a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6) which included those heading for swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

 

[AustinC]

Yet another obfuscation post taking no position.

What does John 6:39 say? That those transferred into Christ's spiritual body will not be cast out? Did anyone say this is not true. So yet another obviously false claim.

The good shepherd gave His life for "the sheep" (John 10:11) So if "the sheep in this verse refers to those God chooses to place in Christ, that truth does not eviscerate the fact Christ's death was a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6) which included those heading for swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

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.

 

[Michael Hollner]

So you will not answer the question, and copy and paste his views?

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....

 

[Van]

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.

Yet another personal attack, with you, you, you. I had already presented my view.

 

[Van]

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....

I did not ask you to go back and forth, I asked for how Dr. Wilson interpreted specific scriptures, and apparently he offered no view on the subject. Fine.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I did not ask you to go back and forth, I asked for how Dr. Wilson interpreted specific scriptures, and apparently he offered no view on the subject. Fine.

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.”

 

[Van]

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.”

Thanks,

Based on your presentation of Dr. Wilson's views, he pretty much holds to what the Bible actually teaches, which is encouraging.
Christ dying for every human being agrees with 1 Timothy 2:6
He opposes exhaustive determinism, which agrees with the biblical teaching not everything has been predetermined.
He supports the actual offer of salvation to everyone equally, indirectly supporting the idea almost everyone is able to respond.

He supports conditional election through faith, which is correct, but I suspect his understanding of how the bible uses the word translated "foreknowledge" is off the mark.

And he agrees with John 3:16, everyone believing into Christ has everlasting life.

Lastly he may agree with the idea that the concept of "God is sovereign" is a Trojan horse for exhaustive determinism.

Again, my sincere thanks for answering my questions. Well done!