But there were false prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the
Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction
(II Pet. 2:1).
UNIVERSAL
ATONEMENT ARGUMENT:
This passage has been appealed to in order
to contradict the Bible’s teaching concerning particular redemption, i.e., that
Christ died only for the elect.
“false teachers … even denying the Lord
that bought them …”
How can these false teachers in any way
have been bought (redeemed) by the Lord? Obviously they are never saved, and
yet the passage seems to deny that Christ died only for the elect by saying
that He bought these men.
(I)
Rev. Ronald Hanko
[Source: Covenant Reformed News, vol. 4, no. 8]
In light of the many
passages of Scripture which teach particular redemption (Is. 53:11; Matt. 1:21;
20:28; 26:28; Luke 1:68; John 10:14, 15; Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:28), we believe
that Scripture cannot possibly be contradicting itself by teaching that Christ
did die for some who perish everlastingly.
Such teaching would not
only deny the biblical doctrine of particular redemption, but would be
blasphemy against the blood of Christ, for it would teach that His blood was
shed in vain for some and did not actually save some for whom He died. This
teaching, therefore, we utterly reject.
But what does II Peter
2:1 teach? There are several possible explanations.
One good explanation says
that the particular word used here and translated “Lord” is only used in the NT
to refer to God the Father (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; II Tim. 2:19; Jude 4; Rev.
6:10) and that, since Peter is writing especially to Jews (I Pet. 1:1), the
reference of the word “bought” is not to the shedding of the blood of Christ as
the purchase price of our redemption, but to the work of God in redeeming the
Jews from Egypt. In other words, these apostate Jews deny the God who redeemed
(bought) them and their nation from slavery in Egypt.
We prefer the explanation
that refers the word “them” not to the false teachers, but to “the people.”
These false teachers with their heresies, therefore, denied Christ who bought
“the people,” not Christ who bought the false teachers.
Whether they did this by
denying the purchasing power of the blood of atonement, or by teaching some
form of universal redemption, i.e., that Christ did not die for specific,
particular people, the passage does not make clear. But whatever their heresy,
they hoped to destroy the people’s confidence in the atoning work of Christ.
This explanation seems
awkward in English where the pronoun, “them,” would ordinarily refer to the
closest noun or pronoun (“false teachers”), but it is not impossible in
Greek—in Luke 5:15-17, “them” refers not to the Pharisees, but to the
multitudes.
If this explanation is
correct, then there is not even a suggestion in the passage that Christ’s blood
was shed unavailingly for some, and that they were actually purchased by
Christ to be His own, only to perish far from Him. That would be impossible in
light of what He says in John 6:37 and 39.
We thank God that not a
drop of His blood, more precious than gold or silver, was shed in vain, but
that every drop availed for the salvation of those whom the Father had given
Him, the elect.
---------------------------------------
(II)
Ronald Hanko & Ronald Cammenga
[Source:
Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five
Points of Calvinism (RFPA, 2002), p. 112]
With
respect to 2 Peter 2:1, it must be remembered, first of all, that the passage
cannot mean that these people were actually purchased by Christ with His own
blood. If that were the case, they would belong to Christ and belong to Him
forever, for as Jesus says in John 10:28, “I give unto them eternal life; and
they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
Keeping that in mind, there are several possible ways to interpret 2 Peter 2:1.
The first would simply make the words “the Lord that bought them” a reference
to the truth of blood atonement as taught by and believed in the church, leaving
the reference of the pronoun “them” general and not a reference to these false prophets. These false prophets deny
the confession of the church, “the Lord bought us.” The other interpretation is
very similar and would make the word “them” refer back to “people” instead of
making it refer to the false teachers. Those who are bought by the blood of
Christ, then, are the people of God in the past and also in the present (those
to whom Peter is writing).
---------------------------------------
(III)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
[Source:
The Standard
Bearer, vol. 12, no. 14 (April 15, 1936), p. 320]
1. It is
evident from all Scripture that the clause, “even denying the Lord that bought them,” cannot mean that the
Lord Jesus intended to die for them and thus bought them by His atoning blood,
and that, nevertheless, they go to swift destruction. For the Lord is the Good
Shepherd, that giveth His life for the sheep.
And the sheep are they, whom the Father gave Him (John 10:11, 14, 15, 27-29).
2. There are
two possible interpretations of the text in II Peter 2:1.
a. The one
is that the clause, “that bought them,” refers to the fact, that these false
teachers formerly belonged to the Church, were of the people of God to all
appearances, in the external sense. They are described according to their
former confession as those whom the Lord bought.
b. There is,
however, according to my opinion a better interpretation, which also explains
why these words should be used at all. The apostle, then, describes them from
the viewpoint of what they denied: that the Lord bought them.
They were false teachers. And deny the atonement, they denied that the Lord
bought them. They might still profess to believe in Jesus, just as the moderns
do, but they really deny Him, seeing that they deny the cross.
---------------------------------------
(IV)
Rev. J. De Jong
[Source:
The Standard
Bearer, vol. 21, no. 6 (December 15, 1944), pp. 138-139]
First of all, it is of course correctly stated when
it is said that we must look upon these false teachers as organically belonging
to the Church of Christ. As to their
individual person, the Lord never bought them.
If that were so, the text would deny the perseverance of the
saints. No, but organically speaking, the Lord
bought them; they were members of the Church, branches of the Vine, called by
the name “Israel.” The Church held them
for such, and they themselves confessed to be such. They said concerning themselves: “The Lord bought
us.” In fact, I think they emphasized
that. I think they understood clearly
the meaning of the doctrine of atonement and they said: “We agree with that, we
believe it, we teach it,—the Lord bought us.”
Let us ask the question and briefly answer it: “What
does it mean that Christ bought us, what is implied in it and what follows from
this?” That Christ bought us implies
first of all that He paid for our sins, that He justifies us, that He saves us
to the uttermost. He delivered us from
the curse of sin. Secondly, it implies that He delivered us
from the power of sin. Meaning: He delivered us to be new creatures
in Him, to live to His honor and glory, to walk in sanctification. He bought us that we might be His peculiar
people, hating sin, crucifying the old man and walk in newness of life.—And
these two: justification and sanctification, always go hand in hand. And here is where the picture of the false
teachers fits in. They said: “We are of
Christ, He bought us, we are justified, we are His own.” But while saying this, they walked in ways of
sin, corruption and evil. They brought
into practice: “Let us sin that grace may abound, let the flesh have its sway.” And in that sense they denied the Lord.
---------------------------------------
(V)
More to come! (DV)
CONDITIONAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT:
Arminians sometimes view this passage as
contradicting the preservation of the saints. It is, in fact, quoted as though
it says that some deny the Lord who bought them. The passage then would be
speaking of those who had been purchased by the blood of Christ and who perhaps
had even been brought to believe that, but now deny it to their own
condemnation and destruction.
(I)
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
[Source:
Covenant
Reformed News, vol. 4, nos. 14-15]
Before
we enter into the passage … we ought to be sure that we understand what the
preservation of the saints is all about …
The following points ought briefly to be made
concerning this doctrine.
1) Most basically, this
doctrine means that once a person is made a child of God, he remains a child of
God throughout all of life, through death, and forever in heaven. He cannot be
a saved child of God for a while, and then cease to be a saved child of God in
the future.
2) This doctrine is based
on many texts in Scripture, the two most well-known being: a) John 10:28, 29:
“And I will give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither
shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is
greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” b) Philippians 1:6: “Being confident of this
very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until
the day of Jesus Christ.”
3) While it is possible to
speak of the perseverance of the saints, I deliberately spoke above of the
preservation of the saints There is good reason for this. The child of
God always remains a child of God because of God’s work. God preserves
His own children. If He did not do this, we would always fall away. It is true
that we persevere; but we persevere only because God preserves
us.
4) This work of God in
preservation is not the same as election. It is true that those whom God has
elected to be His people from all eternity are also saved in time. It is also
true that those who are saved in time are preserved in their salvation. But
preservation looks at the matter from the viewpoint of God’s work in time.
Preservation of the saints is a gift of God’s grace bestowed through Jesus Christ.
5) The preservation of the
saints does not mean that a saved child of God cannot fall into sin. It is
simply a fact that many times God’s people fall so deeply into sin that they
lose the consciousness of their salvation not only, but, as far as their life
is concerned while they walk in sin, no one can tell that they are children of
God. They appear as ungodly. Nevertheless, if they have once been saved, God
preserves His work of regeneration in their hearts, even when they stray far
from Him; and they will, by the power of God’s grace, be brought back again
through repentance to the joy of salvation and a sanctified walk. We have the
illustrations of David and Peter as proof of this.
6) The doctrine of the
preservation of the saints is one of the five points of Calvinism. It is taught
in all the creeds of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (cf. Canons of
Dordrecht, chapter 5; Westminster Confession, chapter 17). But it is
not only one of the five points of Calvinism; it is also essential to the whole
system of Calvinistic thought. From time to time I have met a “Four-Point
Calvinist,” i.e., one who denies the preservation of the saints—although most
“Four-Pointers” deny particular redemption. Yet such a “Four-Pointer” is really
impossible. The system of Calvinism is a system which is so one that it is
impossible to deny one point without denying the other four.
7) The doctrine of the
preservation of the saints is a most precious doctrine, filled with comfort for
the child of God. He finds in this doctrine great comfort when he is sorely
tempted and tried, for he takes courage in the truth that no one can pluck him
out of Christ’s hand. But it is also of great comfort when he falls into sin,
for he, even then, knows that, no matter how great his sins are, God will
perfect the good work which He has begun.
8) Thus the doctrine is of
great pastoral significance and can well be used by faithful pastors and
teachers as they minister to the sheep of Christ in the many sorrows and fierce
temptations of life. The fifth chapter of the Canons of Dordrecht is, in
fact, written from a pastoral viewpoint and is filled with oceans of comfort
and blessing …
And
so we will turn to the actual teaching of II Peter 2:1 …
* *
* * *
Before
we give an explanation of this text, a few points about the text itself would
be helpful.
1)
In the first place, when Peter says that “there were false prophets also among
the people,” he most probably refers to the people of Israel in the Old
Testament times. Specific reference is made to these false prophets in
Deuteronomy 13:1-5, and the passage there presupposes that they would always be
present in the nation.
2)
But, says Peter, they were also present in the day in which he wrote. In fact,
it is always true that there are such prophets in the church. Never is the
church free from them. Wherever Christ speaks His Word, the devil puts a word
in the mouth of false prophets to contradict what Christ says. And by these
false prophets, many are led astray (v. 2).
3)
When Peter uses the expression that these false prophets deny the Lord who
bought them, He means to say that this is one of their damnable heresies. We
ought to be clear on this point. “… there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them.”—i.e., although they bring in many different heresies, one of them is
that they deny the Lord who bought them.
4)
The meaning is, therefore, that among these damnable heresies is one of special
horror: a denial of the blood of the atonement. They deny that Christ died in
order to pay for sin. They deny that the perfect sacrifice of Christ is to
satisfy the justice of God. They are like those today who say that Christ is
only a good example, a man who was willing to die for his principles, but whose
death had no atoning significance. They deny the validity of the atonement.
This
might seem rather far-fetched to us and a heresy which appears on the periphery
of the church. But this is not so. It is really a heresy that appears
implicitly in the teaching of those who hold to a universal atonement. If
Christ died for everyone head for head, and if there are many who are not
saved, then Christ’s death is of no atoning value for many for whom He died.
How, then, do we know that it is of atoning value for anyone?
Let
us be very sure about it: A Christ for all is a Christ for no one. Arminianism
is incipient Modernism.
What,
then, is the meaning of the text?
It
is clear from all that I have said that the meaning is this: These false
teachers are quite obviously in the church. From a certain point of view, they
claim to believe what the church itself confesses. Central to that confession
is the one great truth which the church always confesses: “We are bought with
the blood of Christ!” These false teachers also made that confession at one
time. But now they deny the blood of atonement—within the church, and
present that as the truth. They deny that which formerly they confessed. They
were not, in fact, bought with the blood of Christ. But they confessed,
as a part of the church, that they were. Now they deny that.
With
this interpretation, others agree. S.
Kistemacher writes: “We notice that at one time these false teachers professed
the name of Christ, for they said that they knew him and the way of
righteousness (2:20-21). They made it known that Jesus had bought them, but
they eventually rejected Christ and left the Christian community.”
Herman
Hoeksema writes: “… They used to belong to the church outwardly. They never
were of the church; otherwise they would never have fallen away … They
outwardly belonged to the church: they outwardly belonged to them that the Lord
had bought. Nominally, therefore, they belonged to those who were saved, saved
by the blood of Christ. The Lord had bought them: that was their name in the
church. But now it appears that after all they did not belong to the church,
did not belong to them whom the Lord had bought, because they fell away.”
Hence,
we may conclude that this text underscores a couple of truths.
In
the first place, those who are the saints preserved by God in the world are
those who are elect from all eternity and purchased with the precious blood of
Christ.
The
church has in it always those who claim this truth to be true of them, but who
show by their apostasy that they never were purchased with Christ’s blood. In
fact, they themselves deny the blood of Christ as one of the heresies which
they want to introduce into the church.
It
is, therefore, necessary that the church be always alert, always on her guard
against these terrible false teachers who fight the truth from within.
---------------------------------------
(II)
Ronald Hanko & Ronald Cammenga
[Source:
Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five
Points of Calvinism (RFPA, 2002), p. 165]
The
text really says the opposite about these people. It not only calls them false
teachers, but it says that they brought in with them, that is, into the church,
their damnable heresies. Nor is the idea of the passage that Christ bought them
and now they deny Him, but that their damnable heresy, brought with them
into the church, is a denial of the blood of atonement that was shed as the
only way of salvation. The passage, therefore, does not contradict the rest of
the Scriptures and really does not speak to the matter of perseverance at all!
It only condemns any denial of the atonement as a damnable heresy.
---------------------------------------
(II)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment