1

I am referring to this question.

I do not see how this question can be considered off-topic.

Could someone enlighten me, please ?

2

I didn't participate in this closure, but my suspicion is that the issue may have been with the last phrase

...the New Testament and the whole of canonized Scripture?"

This makes the question seem like it is asking answerers to develop a system of theology. If you have not yet checked out the FAQ, questions about doctrine and specifically questions about systematic theology are off-topic. By asking about all of the new testament, and not just 2 Peter's take, the OP is asking answers to address salvation & atonement in general, and the ransom theory of atonement specifically - seeking answers to either confirm or refute this system of salvation and theology.

Unfortunately, we do not always do a great job of articulating our reasons for our votes to close despite a field for doing so, but looking at the whole bible would not be looking at the history of that biblical text of 2 Peter or the meaning of that biblical text in context of 2 Peter.

That being said, this text really is the cornerstone and foundation for the Ransom Theory of Atonement. I have tried to re-word it and have nominated it for re-opening because at the end of the day, this question really does start withe text and I think is easily made on-topic with some re-wording. Note to Original Poster (OP): If my edits don't quite capture you intent, feel free to edit to further refine the question - but I would be sure not to ask this question in the context of the entirety of New Testament and the whole of canonized Scripture. It's not explicitly stated in that closure reason, but that is the intent - it is in the context of that specific passage or at most that Book of the Bible or author's view (inasmuch as the authorship is not disputed).

3
  • You have articulated my own thoughts that the questioner is raising a fairly fundamental matter. Many texts could be the starting point fir the same query. But I understand that the OP has broadened the enquiry and that has precipitated concern. I have upvoted and accepted your answer. Thank you. – Nigel J Nov 28 '17 at 21:21
  • 1
    From my perspective, I disagree with your assertion "but looking at the whole bible would not be looking at the history of that biblical text of 2 Peter" since I would consider 2 Peter to be written by the apostle and is one of the last NT writings. So the historical background/theology of Peter in that epistle is likely drawing from nearly all of Scripture as a background. He already had the OT, lived the events of the gospels and Acts, including interactions with Paul (and notes familiarity with at least some of Paul's writings [3:15-16]), and knew/worked alongside James. – ScottS Nov 30 '17 at 16:33
  • But I do agree it is not the place of the questioner to make a systematic leap, but rather the burden is on the answerer if they choose to go systematic in his/her answer. – ScottS Nov 30 '17 at 16:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .