WHAT ABOUT 2 PETER 2.1?
"There shall be false teachers...denying the Lord that bought them" (2 Pet. 2.1). Clearly the false teachers are lost-yet they have been "bought" with the blood of Christ. This is a clear denunciation of Limited Atonement. Though apparently accepted as "teachers" within the church, they never were saved, as is the case with those to whom Jude refers who have "crept in unawares...ungoldy men...ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 4). This passage, too, is completely neglected by White and most other Calvinist apologists.
Very few Calvinists have attempted to deal with scriptures such as Heb. 10.29 and 2 Pet. 2.1, telling of the destruction upon those who despise the "blood of the covenant wherewith [they were] sanctified" and "despise the Lord that bought them..." Sproul's Geneva Study Bible attempts to escape by simply ignoring the obvious contradictions of Calvinism. Vance cites most of those who have made such attempts.
Charles Bronson insists that it "approaches blasphemy to say that Christ shed His precious blood for some and then, after all, they perish in hell." Then what do these verses say? Dabney dismisses both verses because: "The language of Peter, and that of Hebrews...may receive an entirely adequate solution, without teaching that Christ actually 'bought' or 'sanctified' any apostate, by saying that the Apostles speak there 'ad hominem'.""Ad hominem"? What does that mean in this context?! There "may" be a solution that explains away such clear language? If there is, Calvinists haven't yet been able to agree upon it.
Concerning those who Heb. 10.29 say were sanctified, Beck claims they were "sanctified but not saved." But how can a Calvinist admit that any except the elect have been sanctified, as MacArthur clearly asserts in his Study Bible? Scary study Bibles to say the least! Are they for people to study or for people to be studied, grabbed and manipulated by the evil spirit? That those described in both passages are lost eternally cannot be questioned. Thus we are left with only two choices: 1) they were once saved and lost their salvation (as taught by the great harlot of Religious Rome-the Roman Church); or 2) they were never saved, yet were purchased and sanctified by Christ's blood. Neither choice fits Calvinism! No wonder, then, that Calvinists generally avoid these two passages.
Gill maintains that Christ himself "is said here to be sanctified"-which doesn't fit the context at all. Owen makes them mere "professors of the faith of the gospel," with which we would agree-but that doesn't explain how these non-elect "mere professors" could be "sanctified" with Christ's blood? (A question posed to all Calvinists!) Other than a few isolated comments, most Calvinists are strangely silent on these two passages. Even in his Hebrews commentary, Pink avoids Hebrews 10.29.
Surely Limited Atonement must be renounced. John 3.16 means what it says. Christ's blood was shed for the sins of the entire world and, in that sense, all are "sanctified." As Paul writes in 1 Tim. 4.10, Christ "is the savior of all men" inasmuch as salvation has been purchased for all, even for those who reject Him; and He is the savior "specially of those that believe," because they have believed the gospel, received Christ, and are thus saved eternally.