The Problem of Peter

If you want to put an end to all the dialog and discussion and terminate those dreaded "5-point Calvinists", it's a simple thing. Just point out 2 Peter 2:1. You see, it's not possible to read that verse without seeing that the Atonement had no limits and, therefore, those awful Reformed folks are wrong.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

Of course, it's not as if they're going to just roll over and admit it. Seems like those guys have an answer for everything. In this case, in fact, they have several.

The text refers to "the Master who bought them" and that's the crux of the question, isn't it? I mean, did Christ die to save everyone or did He die to save the Elect? Calvinists would argue that He intended to save some and actually accomplished it. Others argue that He actually paid in full the sin debt of all mankind and you just have to accept it to get the benefit. I addressed earlier the problem of the notion that all sin is paid in full, but that tends to be the most common perspective.

So what do we do with this passage from 2nd Peter? What we do not do is dismiss it. And before we do anything else with it, we have to ask, "Why ask?" You see, when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (as an example), we have no reason to ask, "What did He mean by that? Did He mean what He said?" So why ask about this? Well, there seems to be a couple of problems to consider. First, if the price for all has been paid in full, on what basis can God judge anyone? They owe nothing -- it's paid. Beyond that, though, there appears to be a contradiction here. These false prophets in question, if we're reading this correctly, have been redeemed by Christ ("the Master who bought them"). The result of denying the Master is their "swift destruction". In other words, it is possible to be redeemed and damned. This is problematic when you consider other passages like "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:29). Apparently Jesus was wrong, since they are able to do it. Paul said, "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6). Too bad, Paul. You were overconfident. There are those who are blood-bought sinners who God will not be able to complete. Or what are we to think when Jude writes, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 1:24-25)? If some stumble and do not end up blameless, was God unable or simply unwilling? There are some serious questions here that need to be analyzed. So we have to ask, "What does Peter really intend when he writes about 'the Master who bought them'?"

One of the most common answers is that it isn't a statement of truth, but a claim of the false prophets. They are making a false claim that they were bought by the Master and are refuting that claim by denying Him. That is, the text isn't saying they were actually bought, but that they are simply claiming to be bought and are not (as clearly demonstrated by their denial of the Master). That's a possibility.

Another possibility is found in the odd use of the term that is translated "Master" here. The Greek word here is not used elsewhere to refer to Christ. References to Christ as Master use kurios -- "Lord". This one is despotes -- "Master". It is not merely a reference to a master, but to a sovereign master, an absolute master. If this is the intent, then it could simply be referencing what Jesus said in Matt 28:18 -- "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." Jesus bought the rights to all authority. This "purchase", then, would not be in terms of redemption (and the Greek word behind it is used in plenty of places to reference buying things without meaning "redemption"), but simply in terms of ownership. The Master "owns them" based on the price He paid.

A third possibility is found in cross-referencing the term. Deuteronomy 32:6 asks Israel, "Is not He your Father who has bought you?" In what sense did the Father buy them? He brought them out of Egypt. Peter knew that. And Peter wrote primarily to Jewish Christians. So these false prophets were typically Jewish false prophets. Now, in the New Testament, this term for "Master" is used almost exclusively to reference the Father, not the Son. If this is the case, then Peter is saying that these Jewish false prophets, by teaching heresies, have denied the Father who redeemed them out of Egypt.

If we conclude that Peter is making a statement about the extent of the Atonement, then we have two problems. First, we have a God who has already received payment for all sin and, yet, still judges people. Second, we have a contradiction of other passages that say that God will sustain His own. These together appear to make God both unjust and incapable. Maybe you don't like the possible answers. I offered three. But understand that it isn't a "Calvinist" problem if you reject those possibilities. It's yours as well. How do you deal with God's justice and His omnipotence if He judges those who are redeemed and fails to keep them redeemed? I definitely have a problem with that.

(Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that the Atonement was only for the Elect and that there was no benefit for the rest. Nor am I suggesting that the Atonement was insufficient to pay for all sin. I haven't, in fact, made any such claims. That's not the point of this post.)