The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 Peter 2:1 Question

Hmmm, you say you don't hold to Amyraldianism, but unless I'm misunderstanding you again, you seem to maintain that Christ actually paid (atoned) for all, i.e., His death was actually sufficient for all. While I have no hesitation in affirming that the blood of Christ, in and of itself, due to the divine nature of Christ would be sufficient to atone for all, the design of the atonement did not include all. Thus, there was no actual redemption paid for the reprobate; only the elect.

Yes, I believe you are still missing something(s).

1. Hermeneutical: The clear passages always interpret the less clear. Given that the understanding of 2Pet 2:1 has been disputed by myriad people, that seems to indicate that its meaning is unclear. There are plenty of other passages which speak of the extent of the atonement that are either not disputed or less disputed. Those passages must take precedence over 2Pet 2:1 and not vice versa where all the perspicuous passages are made to conform to one's proposed understanding of 2Pet 2:1.

2. Theological:

1. The very nature of the economic Trinity is compromised by any view that purports that Christ died for all. Why? Because it was not the intention nor design of the Father to save all. The covenant made between the Father and the Son, aka: "Covenant of Redemption" or "Covenant of Peace" was that the Father decreed to save a specific number of sinners to which the Son covenanted to atone for them and by the Spirit to enable them to secure that redemption and to preserve that same number to the end to the glory of God.
2. The substitutionary nature of the atonement eliminates any possibility of a universal atonement, either complete or partial, e.g., "sufficient for all but efficient for some". This was the major supposition upon which John Owen wrote his treatise, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". If Christ actually paid the price for all then all MUST BE saved. I am confident you are familiar with his well-used synopsis For Whom Did Christ Die?. Linguistically, this is supported by such terms as huper; in behalf of, for, etc. and illustrative passages from the OT in its types and shadows within the ceremonial law, e.g., the "scape goat", etc.
3. The forensic nature of the atonement demands that Christ's passive and active obedience be understood as being "limited", i.e., designed and applied to the elect alone and not for all. It was upon the cross that God judged the sins of those whom He eternally predestined and elected to salvation. The heavenly tribunal was convened, the evidence was presented and the court ruled, pronouncing the verdict of guilty upon the Lamb of God Who was then sentenced to eternal death. That He Himself was innocent of sin secured His resurrection from the grave and His ascension into heaven and thus sits upon the throne. The forensic nature of the atonement can be likewise seen from such terms as Propitiation hilaskomai, hilasmos, Sacrifice zebach, zabach, thusia, prosphora, Reconciliation kaphar, katallage, hilaskomai, Redemption/Ransom pidyowm, pduth, goellah, goel, apolutrosis, kopher, lutron, antilutron. Thus, if Christ is actually the propitiation for all, if He actually was a sacrifice for all, if He has actually reconciled all to God, if He actually redeemed all by paying the required ransom for all, then legally, ALL must be saved and will be saved.

IF one understands 2Pet 2:1 in a non-redemptive context, then no such semantics is necessary. The common usage of agorazo is retained; purchase --> ownership. I do not find your distinction in Scripture... sorry.

Methinks the answer I gave is more than sufficient to answer the question and directly. It was simply God's good pleasure to have a people for Himself which He designed to fall and be redeemed in Christ. Should someone ask, as you suggest, "what is it about me that so eternally pleased him to choose me and what it is about my neighbour that God did not choose him?", the response should always be, "NOTHING! There was and is nothing about YOU that pleased God and which distinguished you from your neighbor." God's election is completely and solely UNconditional. Romans 9:11ff certainly is the sufficient and direct answer to such questions. The elect are saved by grace and by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, which too is a gift of God's grace. The almighty and thrice holy God has the absolute right to create some to honor and some to dishonor, both of which exalt His inexorable holiness, infinite power, and inexpressible love.