The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 Peter 2:1; Is Peter Being Sarcastic?

I really must emphasize the following because what you are inferring isn't true whatsoever for many of us "Calvinists". It isn't that "sufficiency for ALL" rubs our Calvinist doctrine the wrong way which causes many, such as myself to reject that terminology. The phrase flies in the face of the biblical doctrine of atonement, i.e., specifically its forensic element and substitutionary nature, which I have before labored to bring forth. Any 'payment' made by Christ was IN BEHALF OF the elect and TO the Father, which was both sufficient and infallibly and efficiently applied in time. It makes no difference to me whether this is held by Calvinists or not... it is incontrovertibly biblical truth. If the 'ransom' was paid then the debt was met and the debtor(s) are set free from its legal demands. (Isa 43:25; 44:22; Mk 10:45; Gal 3:13; Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:13,14)

I am not convinced that Peter was being sarcastic in 2Pet 2:1. True it is that Paul is given to sarcasm from time to time in his letters. But Paul is Paul; the human element guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. And Peter is Peter, likewise he writing not apart from but with his own humanity [personality] guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. It doesn't appear to me that Peter is given to sarcasm as was Paul.

In regard to Johan's suggestion, I didn't take what he wrote in the way you evidently have taken it. What I understood Johan to mean was that there is at least one OT example where the word 'bought' is used in a non-redemptive sense and Peter could have used this same idea in his letter concerning those whom he said Christ bought. There are myriad examples in the NT where the author quotes or eludes to an OT passage but applies it in a very different way from its original context. There is precedence for that!

Lastly, I do think that Gary Long's article is more than fair in that he gives several options on how this passage could be understood. And, he concedes that he personally can't be dogmatic on which interpretation is correct. However, what he and I both can be dogmatic about is that the Lord Jesus Christ did not 'buy', i.e., atone for, pay the price for, any but the elect, for whosoever Christ died, they will be infallibly saved. So say ALL of the Reformed confessions to which I submit have grasped the truth of Scripture concerning Christ's payment for sin in His vicarious substitutionary atonement.

That's my