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

Your distinction between possessing a book and having the right to possess (physically) the book are duly noted. I do comprehend the difference. However, what I am defending is what I believe to be the biblical and confessional view of the atoning work of Christ where this distinction does not and indeed cannot apply. If the "price" was paid then the object belongs to the purchaser and in the case of Christ paying the price to the Father, then whosoever the price was paid for WILL be brought to Christ by the Spirit and saved eternally, infallibly so. As I labored to point out, the persons of the Trinity are one. The Father predestinates, the Son pays the price for those whom the Father elects, and the Holy Spirit brings them to Christ and preserves them to the end. The "price" IS the atonement and it accomplishes that which it was designed to do; save all those whom the Father has determined to save (Rom 8:29,30; et al).

The Arminians at Dordt insisted that the "price" was paid for ALL but not all are saved. The reason given was that they maintained that the redemption "purchased" was not received by all. What you are arguing for seems all too similar to the section of the Remonstrance. There were a very small number of men in the Westminster Assembly who rejected Amyraldianism but who, nevertheless, held to a type of universal atonement. Although they rejected some of the details of Amyraut's position, they held that Christ died for all, i.e., He paid the price for all in His death. Their position was not accepted as one can plainly see from what the Assembly wrote in the Confession.

Sorry, but I will have to be insistent in my position that God 'saw' nothing in the elect that would commend them to God's good pleasure in contradistinction to the reprobate. If God were to 'look upon' the elect in their naturally fallen state (Infralapsarianism) or even before the decree to create them (Supralapsarianism), what would God possibly 'see' in them which would please Him and not 'see' in those who would be passed by? All of mankind is created in God's image, so that surely doesn't make the difference. All as fallen are totally depraved and stand guilty before God and worthy of eternal damnation, so that isn't a distinguishing mark. And the list could go on for some length. Why the infinitely wise and righteous God chose some and rejected others is known only to Himself. This is one of those instances, I believe, where the finite cannot grasp the Infinite for it is not revealed (Deut 29:29). HOWEVER, we can know what is revealed and that is that God set His love upon some according to His good pleasure, according to His eternal counsel. That God loved me from all eternity for reasons known only to Himself is more than enough information for me. Why the eternal electing love of God isn't sufficient to answer your question is a mystery to me. But it is more than comforting to both my mind and soul.