2nd Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
Secretly introducing destructive heresies is reminiscent of Church splits caused by Calvinism when a Calvinist pastor stealthily seeks to subtly introduce “Reformation”, including the part about denying the Master who bought them, because some Calvinists (namely High Calvinists), reject the John 3:16 Jesus in derogatory (and sometimes blasphemous) ways. However, if Augustinian Predestination was not in view, then this would not apply to Calvinism. Nevertheless, this verse seems to challenge the concept of a Limited Atonement, if false prophets and false teachers had been included with the divine purchase.
For an example of how someone might deny the Master would bought them, consider the following statements from one particular High Calvinist:
One High Calvinist explains: “Then your god is not the all powerful God of the bible, because your god doesn’t get his own desires. Your god is impotent and is at the mercy of his creation. Indeed your god is in need of them and is unable to save without our help. I can’t serve such a weak god. The real God doesn’t depend upon his creatures and the real God will always get whatever he wants and he guarantees the salvation of his people. All that God wants to save he will save.”
The High Calvinist adds: “...there is no greater blasphemy than a god that cannot save. I believe in the biblical God that is more than able to save. So if it’s blasphemy to believe in that God, so be it. I would rather serve Satan than the weak, non sovereign god expressed here.”
Rancorous statements such as these are actually quite common to find on the Internet, although much less common to find in mainstream publications.
Question: What will these false teachers do?
Answer: They will, 1) “secretly introduce destructive heresies” and 2) “denying the Master who bought them.”
Question: Why is special mention made of them “secretly” introducing it?
Answer: Doing it stealthily and subversively does not coincide with godliness, which Calvinists ought to consider when they similarly attempt to stealthily and subversively introduce what many feel is “destructive” into a non-Calvinist Church with an attempt to initiate what Calvinists refer to as “Reformation.” In the section on Practical Suggestions, the following advice is given: “Don’t tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform. ... Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.” Instead of trying to recruit insurgents, and indoctrinating what is sometimes, the aggressive and rebellious youth, why not simply go before the entire Church Congregation and be completely candid, and explain why you believe what you do?, or is that kind of transparency just too impractical for the kingdom of God?
Question: If atonement is limited, then how is it that Christ bought the ones who denied Him? In other words, if the impact of Calvary is limited to only those who believe, then how is it that Christ “bought” the ones who disbelieve?
Answer: One Calvinist contends that they merely claimed that God bought them.
Calvinist, Collin Maxwell: “If He did, then here is solid evidence that He died for those other than His own elect because these men (being damnable heretics) are in hell. How do Calvinists answer this objection to our doctrine of Particular Redemption i.e. that all for whom Christ died will eventually be saved and be in Heaven? Read on! ... In keeping with the general tenor of Scripture that God cannot know frustration in those things which He sets out to do (Isaiah 46:10 etc.,) we believe that their purchase was professed and not actual i.e. they denied the Lord whom they professed to have bought them.” (Did Christ Purchase with His own Blood the Apostates in 2 Peter 2:1?, emphasis mine)
Question: Who claimed that the Master had bought them.
Answer: Peter. He stated, “even denying the Master who bought them.” In other words, can you believe that? The very One that purchased their redemption, also betrayed and disowned Him. That’s the thrust of it.
Question: What does it mean that the Lord “bought” them”?
Answer: Before you can answer that, you have to consider what it meant for Jesus to be their “Master.” Master is used in connection with owning a slave: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master” (Matthew 10:24), and Jesus was referred to as “Master” by Peter (Luke 5:5; Luke 8:45; Luke 9:33), the disciples (Luke 8:24; Luke 9:49) and the townspeople: “And they raised their voices, saying, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!’” So it is of no surprise to see Peter, a disciple, and later an apostle, use the same term here, as well as Jude: “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4) Therefore, “denying the Master who bought them,” according to Peter and Jude, would depict Jesus in a position of ownership, such as a Master owning a slave, who “bought them” in that sense, and with the impact that these purchased slaves had denied their owner, and which the parables liken to an “evil slave” (Matthew 24:48) and a “wicked slave.” (Matthew 25:26)
However, Maxwell cites 1st John 1:10 in his unique view: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” In other words, God says that we are sinners. So if we contradict Him, we are, in effect, calling God a liar. Obviously God is not a liar. This is just a way of speaking. So the question is whether or not Peter is using a similar expression concerning 2nd Peter 2:1.
Maxwell: “Do they actually make Him to be a liar...or do they (by their denial of His charges against them) profess Him to be a liar? Obviously the latter. No one can make anybody (never mind God) an actual liar - the only one who can actually make you a liar is yourself (i.e. when you tell lies) But anyone can profess you to be a liar - just spread the rumour and the deed is done. It was on this principle that Potiphar’s wife got Joseph sent to prison for adultery - it was professed rather than actual.” (Did Christ Purchase with His own Blood the Apostates in 2 Peter 2:1?, emphasis mine)
Maxwell: “So here in 2 Peter 2:1 These damnable heretics, professing to be redeemed by Christ’s blood, are dealt with accordingly.” (Did Christ Purchase with His own Blood the Apostates in 2 Peter 2:1?, emphasis mine)
Question: How is “denying the Master who bought them” equivalent to “professing that the Master bought them”?
Answer: There is nothing in the context to support this change to the text. It’s also very dangerous to Christianity to abandon the plain reading of the text, in favor of something very subtle, and without contextual support. The danger is that the authority of Scripture is forfeit, and the real authority now rests in the interpreter.
Question: What does it mean to “deny” Christ?
Answer: In terms of the evil and wicked slaves described at Matthew 24:48 and Matthew 25:26, it could mean several things, and could have a Gnostic reference, in terms of denying that Jesus came in the flesh, or advancing a doctrine of carnality, or denying that Jesus is the Son of God. Regardless of how you slice it, they were false teachers. Other examples carry the meaning of having denied the faith (1st Timothy 5:8), denied God’s power (2nd Timothy 3:5), denied His name (Revelation 3:8), denied His supremacy (Matthew 23:8-10), denied His deity (Colossians 2:8-9) and denied His resurrection. (Romans 10:9)
Calvinist, William MacDonald: “Here we should pause to remind ourselves that while these false teachers to whom Peter refers had been bought by the Lord, they had never been redeemed. The NT distinguishes between purchase and redemption. All are purchased but not all are redeemed. Redemption applies only to those who receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, availing themselves of the value of His shed blood (1 Pet. 18, 19).” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295, emphasis mine)
MacDonald is a 4-Point Calvinist who teaches an Unlimited Atonement. In contrast, 5-Point Calvinists have typically taught that Jesus did not purchase everyone, but only those of the eternal flock of the Father, such that the false teachers of 2nd Peter 2:1 falsely claimed that Jesus bought them. Still, others, have taught a universal purchase, though with a Particular Redemption of just the elect [in the Father]. The reasoning uses an analogy of buying a candy bar. You don’t buy the candy bar in order to get the wrapper. The wrapper just happens to come along with the candy. When you buy it, you eat the candy and throw the wrapper in the trash. Therefore, God bought all men with the intention of getting “the elect,” whereas the unwanted, unloved and spiritually aborted non-elect are then discarded into the dumpster of an eternal Hell. A similar analogy involves the purchase of a piece of land:
MacDonald: “In Matthew 13:44 the Lord Jesus is pictured as a man who sold all He had to buy a field. In verse 38 of that same chapter, the field is distinctly said to be the world. So by His death on the cross, the Lord bought the world and all who are in it. But He did not redeem the whole world. While His work was sufficient for the redemption of all mankind, it is only effective for those who repent, believe, and accept Him.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295)
Whereas MacDonald’s conclusion is biblically accurate, the interpretation of the parable of Matthew 13:44, may be incorrect. Consider the interpretation of J.C. Ryle:
Calvinist, J.C. Ryle, provides an alternate interpretation of the parable of Matthew 13:44: “The parables of the ‘treasures hidden in a field’ (verse 44) and the ‘merchant looking for fine pearls’ (verses 45-46) appear intended to convey the same lesson. They vary, no doubt, in one striking way: the ‘treasures’ was found by someone who does not seem to have sought it; the ‘pearl’ was found by one who was actually looking for pearls. But the conduct of the finders, in both cases, was precisely alike: both ‘sold all they had’ to make the thing they had found their own property; and it is exactly at this point that the instruction of both parables agrees. … These two parables are meant to teach us that those who are really convinced of the importance of salvation will give up everything to win Christ and eternal life. What was the conduct of the two men our Lord describes? One was persuaded that there was a ‘treasure hidden in a field,’ which would amply repay him if he bought the field, however great the price. The other was persuaded that the ‘pearl’ he had found was so immensely valuable that he wanted to buy it at any cost. Both were convinced that they had found a thing of great value: both were satisfied that it was worth a great sacrifice now to make this thing their own. Others might wonder at them; others might think them foolish for paying such a sum of money for the ‘field’ and ‘pearl,’ but they knew what they were about. They were sure that they were getting a bargain. We see, in this simple picture, the conduct of a true Christian explained. He is what he is, and does what he does in his religion, because he is thoroughly persuaded that it is worthwhile. He comes out from the world; he puts off the old man; he leaves the vain companions of his past life. Like Matthew, he gives up everything, and like Paul, he considers ‘everything a loss’ (Philippians 3:8) for Christ’s sake. And why? Because he is convinced that Christ will make amends to him for all he gives up. He sees in Christ an endless ‘treasure,’ he sees in Christ a precious ‘pearl’: to win Christ he will make any sacrifice. This is true faith. This is the stamp of a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew: Ryle, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.109-110)
Ryle’s interpretation is consistent with the message of Christ as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” (Matthew 16:24)
Nevertheless, the Arminian view is that God purchased everyone with the intention of redeeming anyone
who might believe in His Son. Calvinists do not believe that anyone could, in light of the total depravity of man, and therefore Arminians point Calvinists to the supernatural (John 6:63), faith-giving (Romans 10:17), power (Romans 1:16) of the living and active Gospel (Hebrews 4:12) which is able to save souls (James 1:21), and presents that as the solution to man’s inability, in conjunction with the intervention of Christ’s draw (John 12:32) and the Holy Spirit’s universal conviction. (John 16:8)
Calvinists raise several arguments concerning the impact of a universal purchase, which you may also refer to here.
Purchase Summary:
5-Point High Calvinism: Only the elect were purchased & redeemed 2,000 years ago at the Cross.
5-Point Low Calvinism: Universal purchase (field), particular redemption of the elect (treasure), both occurred 2,000 years ago at the cross.
4-Point Calvinism: Universal purchase 2,000 years ago at the Cross (field); particular redemption of the elect (treasure) occurs upon conversion through faith.
Arminianism: Universal purchase 2,000 years ago at the Cross; redemption occurs upon conversion through faith; Partial regeneration enables conversion by the power of the Gospel and conviction of the Holy Spirit while full regeneration comes after conversion.
