<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does 2 Peter 2:1 Contradict Particular Redemption?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ajgibson.org/blog/2010/06/01/does-2-peter-21-contradict-particular-redemption/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ajgibson.org/blog/2010/06/01/does-2-peter-21-contradict-particular-redemption/</link>
	<description>&#34;. . . grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:19:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phil Gons</title>
		<link>http://ajgibson.org/blog/2010/06/01/does-2-peter-21-contradict-particular-redemption/comment-page-1/#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Gons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:04:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ajgibson.org/blog/?p=838#comment-490</guid>
		<description>Good stuff, AJ. I take essentially the same position. The key point is that these men were apostates. IMO, Hebrews 10:29 is another key text to bring into the discussion. (1 Corinthians 7:14 is also worth mentioning.) I hadn&#039;t found it anywhere else until I discovered that Tom Schreiner holds this view. I think it most adequately deals with all of the texts and provides a convincing rebuttal to the argument against an effectual and particular atonement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff, AJ. I take essentially the same position. The key point is that these men were apostates. IMO, Hebrews 10:29 is another key text to bring into the discussion. (1 Corinthians 7:14 is also worth mentioning.) I hadn&#8217;t found it anywhere else until I discovered that Tom Schreiner holds this view. I think it most adequately deals with all of the texts and provides a convincing rebuttal to the argument against an effectual and particular atonement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

