My friend - please keep teaching and posting your videos. They are a HUGE encouragement to me and to my family. Nothing is more satisfying than hearing and ingesting the truth of the Scriptures. You are a very good teacher, who loves the truth. Brotherly love, Luke
So, the video eventually went “all over the place” talking about how to interpret Hebrews 10 and Luke 8 for example. I would note these as completely different passages with different contexts. Here’s the fundamental issue: If we don’t start with the presupposition of Limited Atonement (specifically in relation to the extent of the atonement for individuals), then we can accept 2 Peter 2:1 for the plain reading - that the Lord bought the false teachers. These false teachers are the non-elect. Since we have non-elect people here being actually bought - therefore Limited Atonement stands refuted. Rather, God so loved the world - referring to the elect & non-elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever (of the world) that believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God didn’t send his Son into the world to condemn anyone - because all were already condemned because of unbelief - but rather he sent Jesus to die so that the world would be saved if they believe in Jesus.
Y’all - listen to what you’re saying ….. if Christ bought them (legal tender) … then Christ lost them …. Which John 6 clearly says He will not. If I may say, in your view, what a weak God to have legally bought something, such as a sheep, claim to be the Great Shepherd, and then lose the sheep the Father gave to Him.
@@americanwarriorluke4990 Negative. I actually believe in Unconditional Election & Eternal Security. Christ purchased all mankind because of his love for all. But he did not purchase effectual salvation for all, because that is reserved for the unconditionally elect only.
@projectcloud - thank you for your kind response. If what you just said is what you believe, then that *IS* ‘limited atonement.’ The question that is being asked is …. “What did Christ accomplish in the atonement.” And He atoned for the sins of the unconditionally elect. If He atoned for the sins of everyone, then all will be saved - justified and glorified. “Limited atonement” is probably a poorly worded phrase for the teaching because, in the atonement, Christ actually did more than what you are saying: For in His blood, He institutes the New Covenant. ie - “This is the New Covenant by My blood.” Within the New Covenant, Christ does away with the old covenant of Moses in which the people could obey and receive blessings or sin and receive curses (Deuteronomy 28 and 29). Now, with the New Covenant, Christ the conditions of obedience and disobedience, and He says I will remove your heart of stone and I will give you a heart of flesh, and you will cause you to walk in my statutes and obey my rules (Ezekiel 36) and I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31). Christ promises and completes the action in and of Himself. So faith in Christ is accomplished by and for those who are unconditionally elected. Faith and obedience are promised in the New Covenant …. There are no ‘if … then’ contingencies like there were in the Old Covenant. I actually used to think in the same way as you. That I believed in election and eternal security, but I denied atonement limited to the elect and I denied irresistible grace. But then I submitted to the Scriptures and realized what I wanted to cling to so badly was a western sense of justice and independence. And thankfully, the clear teaching of the Scriptures melted my heart and my pride.
As I stated in another comment, I believe that those who were "bought" in this verse is in relation to those who are saved within that congregation in which the false teacher speaks in. The false teacher denies God who bought the true believers within the congregation. Remember, false teachers come in like wolves but are not sheep.
@@americanwarriorluke4990 2 Peter 2:1 upon a plain reading denies Limited Atonement. That doctrine disallows the text to speak freely. So the solution is to recognize that the Bible doesn’t teach Limited Atonement (the claims to the contrary are going to involve the negative inference fallacy) - hence there is no problem.
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God hath raised Jesus from the dead, thou shalt be saved. If you confessed, you have called upon the name of the Lord. If you have done such, then you were brought to God by the Father who predestined you. This implies that you are serious and actually believe and are truly led by God to confess and believe and that you are not doing it for some other motive.
@@carolynbohannon4602 You are correct. I should have said, if you have recognized you are a sinner and that you have broken the law, believe that Jesus paid your debt on the cross through his shed blood, and if you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you are saved. It is all about faith, not of works. I was a Calvinist a month ago and have since learned the errors of my ways. I am now fully free grace in theology.
Twisting the scripture to fit a predetermined interpretation. Scripture says he bought them, didn’t appear to be bought. We can certainly walk away from our relationship.
The 'them' could be referring to those in the congregation/church who really are saved. It could be saying that the false teachers deny Jesus who bought them (implying those in the congregation). Otherwise, it would invalidate all kinds of other scripture, and that is not possible. When you look at everything in context, it is clear that one cannot lose their salvation. These verses are referring to people who were never saved in the first place.
@@markwinslow1423 This is an Old Testament verse and should be understood in the context of the time. This was before Jesus went to the cross, before His blood was shed for the remission of our sins. This was during a time when faithful law keeping, a time when they were sacrificing lambs and bulls to atone for their sin, and in doing so that was the only way they could be forgiven. After Jesus died for his elect, his blood pays the price for all sin of those individuals who believe on his name, including past, present, and future sins. Using this verse in the way you seem to be implying it be used ignores the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Galatians makes the distinction. Galatians 3:10-14: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
@@willp.8120 False doctrine of dispensationalism. There has always been 1 way to salvation. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the Old was written on stone the New is written on the heart. Jesus' death on the cross did away with the types that pointed to the antitype. Those under the OC did not earn their salvation by works. If they did when David sinned with Bathsheba he would have just sacrificed animals to atone for it. Instead he fell prostrate and said create in me Lord a new heart- That is New Covenant terminology. Salvation has always been by grace through Jesus Christ. At no point was in a system of works.
@@willp.8120 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. When this was written only the OT was considered scripture, though some of Paul's letters were considered inspired. The fact you base the majority of your argument on the opinion of an uninspired author tells me all I need to know. There is no such thing as once saved always saved. A person that at one time had a saving relationship in Christ can certainly choose to walk away from the relationship.
This is a textbook case of special pleading. I teach a class and am using this as the clearest example of twisting scripture and adding to scripture to maintain a point of view. Amazing. Nothing in the text informs your understanding. Nothing.
In my opinion, this video presentation is unbiblical. You started off this video saying you believed on limited atonement and obviously it is such a controversial issue and so much misunderstood. FYI in the first place, 2Peter2:1 does not refer to the subject on limited atonement as you erroneously claimed. The verse in question, 2 Peter 2:1 states: “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.” This certainly does sound bad for limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints, and, indeed, all five points of the doctrines of grace. But let’s look at the context of the verse and at some of the words that compose the verse… Toward the end of 2 Peter 1, Peter explains that prophecy does not come from men but holy men speak it as they are moved by the Holy Spirit. In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter says that there were false prophets among the people-Old Testament Israel-even as there shall be false teachers among you. So, Peter has his focus on false teachers. These false teachers will bring in “damnable heresies” (haireseis apōleias-literally, “destructive choices”). Now I want to examine the phrase, “even denying the Lord that bought them.” Taken by itself, without further examination, this certainly seems to say that these false teachers will deny Jesus who bought them. But upon further examination, we see some things that should cause us to think twice before quickly assuming its meaning…. The word “Lord” in this verse is from the Greek word despotēn. The New Testament never uses this word as a title for Jesus Christ. When Jesus is called Lord, the word “Lord” is translated from the Greek word kurios. Whenever despotēn is used, it refers either to an earthly master (such as the master of a slave) or to God in general or as Creator or God of Israel. Again, it is never used of Jesus Christ. In fact, in Jude 1:4, despotēn, as used of God, is specifically distinguished from kurios, as used of Jesus Christ: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord [despotēn] God, and our Lord [kurios] Jesus Christ” (what I have said here is based on the Majority Text [and the similar Textus Receptus], which I consider to be the more reliable text compared to the NU-Text). Further notice that, although this verse in Jude is somewhat parallel to 2 Peter 2:1, Jude does not say anything about these men denying Jesus Christ who bought them. He also calls these men ungodly (asebeis-the word literally means without reverence). Ungodly men have not been redeemed by Jesus Christ…. So, we should now suspect that, in 2 Peter 2:1, Peter was not referring to Jesus Christ when he used the word despotēn. We should also notice that Peter simply speaks of the Lord “that bought them.” But when the New Testament speaks of our being purchased by Jesus Christ, it qualifies it with either a price or from where we have been purchased. Notice these examples: “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20); “Ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 7:23); “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:13); “To redeem them that were under the law” (Galatians 4:5); “he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Titus 2:14); “hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9); “which were redeemed from the earth” (Revelation 14:3); “These were redeemed from among men” (Revelation 14:4). But Peter does not speak of the price or from where we have been purchased. This should also make us suspect that Peter is not speaking of our being purchased by Jesus Christ….. The clincher is in the fact that “denying the Lord that bought them” stems from the Old Testament. When Peter wrote, the church was still largely Jewish, and Peter was an apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8). Notice that many of the references in Peter’s writings, including in 2 Peter 2, are to the Old Testament. Even in verse 1, Peter likens these false teachers to the false prophets of the Old Testament. “Denying the Lord that bought them” is based on Deuteronomy 32:6: “Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?” This buying, then, is something that occurred in the Old Testament; it is the redeeming of Israel out of Egypt (see Exodus 15:16). The false teachers Peter is writing about are Jews who, through their damnable heresies, are even denying the Lord God who redeemed them out of Egypt. These people are bad, not just by Christian standards, but also by Jewish standards. In other words, this is not a reference to their having been purchased with the blood of Jesus Christ and then receiving destruction. This has nothing to do with our redemption by Jesus Christ…. As Peter continues, it becomes increasingly obvious that these people were reprobate from the beginning and have never had a chance for salvation: But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes [notice again the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:5], sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you…. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 2 Peter 2:12-13, 17. Some might still point to verses 20-22, which might seem to be about saints who return to the sinfulness of the world and lose their salvation. But the previous verses we have examined show that these are unsaved people who may have temporarily escaped the foulness of this world through a feeling of moralism brought on by a knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But they turn back to the world because they were never really regenerated and saved. In fact, I believe such moralism to be a common problem in the church today……. . So, in summary, 2 Peter 2:1 is not speaking of people who have been damned because they have denied the Lord Jesus Christ who bought them. It is speaking of Jewish false teachers who, in verse 12, are likened to “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” and even deny the Lord God who redeemed them out of Egypt and in return receive swift destruction. Thus, this verse in no way contradicts either limited atonement or the perseverance of the saints. So, apparently your teaching is erroneous for the above obvious reasons. Thank you.
![The Authority of Caesar and God | Matthew 22:15-22 [Sermon]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VE9a-d10Ce4/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Authority of Caesar and God | Matthew 22:15-22 [Sermon]](/img/tr.png)
My friend - please keep teaching and posting your videos. They are a HUGE encouragement to me and to my family. Nothing is more satisfying than hearing and ingesting the truth of the Scriptures. You are a very good teacher, who loves the truth.
Brotherly love,
Luke
Amen 🙏🏻
So, the video eventually went “all over the place” talking about how to interpret Hebrews 10 and Luke 8 for example. I would note these as completely different passages with different contexts.
Here’s the fundamental issue: If we don’t start with the presupposition of Limited Atonement (specifically in relation to the extent of the atonement for individuals), then we can accept 2 Peter 2:1 for the plain reading - that the Lord bought the false teachers. These false teachers are the non-elect. Since we have non-elect people here being actually bought - therefore Limited Atonement stands refuted.
Rather, God so loved the world - referring to the elect & non-elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever (of the world) that believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God didn’t send his Son into the world to condemn anyone - because all were already condemned because of unbelief - but rather he sent Jesus to die so that the world would be saved if they believe in Jesus.
Y’all - listen to what you’re saying ….. if Christ bought them (legal tender) … then Christ lost them …. Which John 6 clearly says He will not.
If I may say, in your view, what a weak God to have legally bought something, such as a sheep, claim to be the Great Shepherd, and then lose the sheep the Father gave to Him.
@@americanwarriorluke4990 Negative. I actually believe in Unconditional Election & Eternal Security.
Christ purchased all mankind because of his love for all. But he did not purchase effectual salvation for all, because that is reserved for the unconditionally elect only.
@projectcloud - thank you for your kind response. If what you just said is what you believe, then that *IS* ‘limited atonement.’ The question that is being asked is …. “What did Christ accomplish in the atonement.” And He atoned for the sins of the unconditionally elect. If He atoned for the sins of everyone, then all will be saved - justified and glorified.
“Limited atonement” is probably a poorly worded phrase for the teaching because, in the atonement, Christ actually did more than what you are saying:
For in His blood, He institutes the New Covenant. ie - “This is the New Covenant by My blood.”
Within the New Covenant, Christ does away with the old covenant of Moses in which the people could obey and receive blessings or sin and receive curses (Deuteronomy 28 and 29). Now, with the New Covenant, Christ the conditions of obedience and disobedience, and He says I will remove your heart of stone and I will give you a heart of flesh, and you will cause you to walk in my statutes and obey my rules (Ezekiel 36) and I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31). Christ promises and completes the action in and of Himself. So faith in Christ is accomplished by and for those who are unconditionally elected. Faith and obedience are promised in the New Covenant …. There are no ‘if … then’ contingencies like there were in the Old Covenant.
I actually used to think in the same way as you. That I believed in election and eternal security, but I denied atonement limited to the elect and I denied irresistible grace. But then I submitted to the Scriptures and realized what I wanted to cling to so badly was a western sense of justice and independence. And thankfully, the clear teaching of the Scriptures melted my heart and my pride.
As I stated in another comment, I believe that those who were "bought" in this verse is in relation to those who are saved within that congregation in which the false teacher speaks in. The false teacher denies God who bought the true believers within the congregation. Remember, false teachers come in like wolves but are not sheep.
@@americanwarriorluke4990 2 Peter 2:1 upon a plain reading denies Limited Atonement. That doctrine disallows the text to speak freely. So the solution is to recognize that the Bible doesn’t teach Limited Atonement (the claims to the contrary are going to involve the negative inference fallacy) - hence there is no problem.
You hit to close to home my brother need to prosese it all.
Good morning
How do we know we have it? salvation.
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God hath raised Jesus from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If you confessed, you have called upon the name of the Lord. If you have done such, then you were brought to God by the Father who predestined you.
This implies that you are serious and actually believe and are truly led by God to confess and believe and that you are not doing it for some other motive.
Not a helpful answer
@@carolynbohannon4602
You are correct.
I should have said, if you have recognized you are a sinner and that you have broken the law, believe that Jesus paid your debt on the cross through his shed blood, and if you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then you are saved. It is all about faith, not of works.
I was a Calvinist a month ago and have since learned the errors of my ways. I am now fully free grace in theology.
Do you personally trust Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins and for your righteousness before the Father?
I do, but is knowing Enough? I am a messianic Jew. There should be more than faith @@arthur6157
Twisting the scripture to fit a predetermined interpretation. Scripture says he bought them, didn’t appear to be bought. We can certainly walk away from our relationship.
The 'them' could be referring to those in the congregation/church who really are saved. It could be saying that the false teachers deny Jesus who bought them (implying those in the congregation). Otherwise, it would invalidate all kinds of other scripture, and that is not possible.
When you look at everything in context, it is clear that one cannot lose their salvation.
These verses are referring to people who were never saved in the first place.
@@willp.8120
Ezekiel 18:26. Let me see how you twist this scripture to match your theology
@@markwinslow1423 This is an Old Testament verse and should be understood in the context of the time. This was before Jesus went to the cross, before His blood was shed for the remission of our sins.
This was during a time when faithful law keeping, a time when they were sacrificing lambs and bulls to atone for their sin, and in doing so that was the only way they could be forgiven.
After Jesus died for his elect, his blood pays the price for all sin of those individuals who believe on his name, including past, present, and future sins.
Using this verse in the way you seem to be implying it be used ignores the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
Galatians makes the distinction.
Galatians 3:10-14:
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
@@willp.8120
False doctrine of dispensationalism. There has always been 1 way to salvation. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the Old was written on stone the New is written on the heart. Jesus' death on the cross did away with the types that pointed to the antitype. Those under the OC did not earn their salvation by works. If they did when David sinned with Bathsheba he would have just sacrificed animals to atone for it. Instead he fell prostrate and said create in me Lord a new heart- That is New Covenant terminology. Salvation has always been by grace through Jesus Christ. At no point was in a system of works.
@@willp.8120
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
When this was written only the OT was considered scripture, though some of Paul's letters were considered inspired. The fact you base the majority of your argument on the opinion of an uninspired author tells me all I need to know.
There is no such thing as once saved always saved. A person that at one time had a saving relationship in Christ can certainly choose to walk away from the relationship.
This is a textbook case of special pleading. I teach a class and am using this as the clearest example of twisting scripture and adding to scripture to maintain a point of view. Amazing. Nothing in the text informs your understanding. Nothing.
In my opinion, this video presentation is unbiblical. You started off this video saying you believed on limited atonement and obviously it is such a controversial issue and so much misunderstood. FYI in the first place, 2Peter2:1 does not refer to the subject on limited atonement as you erroneously claimed. The verse in question, 2 Peter 2:1 states: “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.” This certainly does sound bad for limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints, and, indeed, all five points of the doctrines of grace. But let’s look at the context of the verse and at some of the words that compose the verse…
Toward the end of 2 Peter 1, Peter explains that prophecy does not come from men but holy men speak it as they are moved by the Holy Spirit. In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter says that there were false prophets among the people-Old Testament Israel-even as there shall be false teachers among you. So, Peter has his focus on false teachers. These false teachers will bring in “damnable heresies” (haireseis apōleias-literally, “destructive choices”). Now I want to examine the phrase, “even denying the Lord that bought them.” Taken by itself, without further examination, this certainly seems to say that these false teachers will deny Jesus who bought them. But upon further examination, we see some things that should cause us to think twice before quickly assuming its meaning….
The word “Lord” in this verse is from the Greek word despotēn. The New Testament never uses this word as a title for Jesus Christ. When Jesus is called Lord, the word “Lord” is translated from the Greek word kurios. Whenever despotēn is used, it refers either to an earthly master (such as the master of a slave) or to God in general or as Creator or God of Israel. Again, it is never used of Jesus Christ. In fact, in Jude 1:4, despotēn, as used of God, is specifically distinguished from kurios, as used of Jesus Christ: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord [despotēn] God, and our Lord [kurios] Jesus Christ” (what I have said here is based on the Majority Text [and the similar Textus Receptus], which I consider to be the more reliable text compared to the NU-Text). Further notice that, although this verse in Jude is somewhat parallel to 2 Peter 2:1, Jude does not say anything about these men denying Jesus Christ who bought them. He also calls these men ungodly (asebeis-the word literally means without reverence). Ungodly men have not been redeemed by Jesus Christ….
So, we should now suspect that, in 2 Peter 2:1, Peter was not referring to Jesus Christ when he used the word despotēn. We should also notice that Peter simply speaks of the Lord “that bought them.” But when the New Testament speaks of our being purchased by Jesus Christ, it qualifies it with either a price or from where we have been purchased. Notice these examples: “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20); “Ye are bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 7:23); “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:13); “To redeem them that were under the law” (Galatians 4:5); “he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Titus 2:14); “hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9); “which were redeemed from the earth” (Revelation 14:3); “These were redeemed from among men” (Revelation 14:4). But Peter does not speak of the price or from where we have been purchased. This should also make us suspect that Peter is not speaking of our being purchased by Jesus Christ…..
The clincher is in the fact that “denying the Lord that bought them” stems from the Old Testament. When Peter wrote, the church was still largely Jewish, and Peter was an apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8). Notice that many of the references in Peter’s writings, including in 2 Peter 2, are to the Old Testament. Even in verse 1, Peter likens these false teachers to the false prophets of the Old Testament. “Denying the Lord that bought them” is based on Deuteronomy 32:6: “Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?” This buying, then, is something that occurred in the Old Testament; it is the redeeming of Israel out of Egypt (see Exodus 15:16). The false teachers Peter is writing about are Jews who, through their damnable heresies, are even denying the Lord God who redeemed them out of Egypt. These people are bad, not just by Christian standards, but also by Jewish standards. In other words, this is not a reference to their having been purchased with the blood of Jesus Christ and then receiving destruction. This has nothing to do with our redemption by Jesus Christ….
As Peter continues, it becomes increasingly obvious that these people were reprobate from the beginning and have never had a chance for salvation: But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes [notice again the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:5], sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you….
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 2 Peter 2:12-13, 17. Some might still point to verses 20-22, which might seem to be about saints who return to the sinfulness of the world and lose their salvation. But the previous verses we have examined show that these are unsaved people who may have temporarily escaped the foulness of this world through a feeling of moralism brought on by a knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But they turn back to the world because they were never really regenerated and saved. In fact, I believe such moralism to be a common problem in the church today……. .
So, in summary, 2 Peter 2:1 is not speaking of people who have been damned because they have denied the Lord Jesus Christ who bought them. It is speaking of Jewish false teachers who, in verse 12, are likened to “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” and even deny the Lord God who redeemed them out of Egypt and in return receive swift destruction. Thus, this verse in no way contradicts either limited atonement or the perseverance of the saints. So, apparently your teaching is erroneous for the above obvious reasons. Thank you.
No
@@mr.f6912 no, what?????