Can those folks "for whom Christ died" be damned? (1 Corinthians 8:11 & 2 Peter 2:1)

Calvinist believe in a doctrine called Limited Atonement. This doctrine is not so much derived from Scripture, but rather from systematic theology: they reason that if Jesus died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, but since everyone is not saved, then Jesus must only have died for a limited number of men. This false dilemma hinges on a fault understanding of the Cross called Penal Substitution, which I've written about frequently. One way to refute Limited Atonement is to show that Scripture speaks of people whom Jesus died for ended up rejecting him and being damned. 

One text that I like to turn to is 1 Corinthians 8:

10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

The lesson at hand is that there were some Christian converts from paganism who were accustomed to idolatry. While a mature Christian knows that there is no such thing as "unclean meat," to the less mature Christian this reminds them of the time when they used to worship false gods and partake in the sacrifices offered to them. (cf Rom 14:14-15) What Paul is saying is that a mature Christian should not do anything that could cause another person to fall into sin. This is traditionally called "causing scandal." For a more modern day analogy, lets say a Christian brother is a recovering alcoholic. If you flaunt alcohol in front of them, you could easily be playing a role in causing them to fall back into alcoholism. Indeed, this danger was so real in some places that the Magisterium at the Council of Jerusalem had to put a formal ban on eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28-29; 16:4).

Looking specifically at 1 Corinthians 8:11, it is saying that a weak Christian brother "for whom Christ died" can be drawn (back) into idolatry, apostatize, and end up damned. The Greek word for "destroyed" is apollymi, a term that means to utterly perish and used often in regards to being damned. Indeed, Paul uses the term to mean spiritually perish in virtually every instance he uses this word. A Calvinist must come up with an alternative to this, otherwise his theology is utterly refuted. 

If the Calvinist says this weak brother was not really a Christian, then that pretty much makes nonsense of the passage. So they must say something to the effect that this "destruction" does not refer to losing salvation, but rather something like physical death. But I see no way of demonstrating this without begging the question. The very language of "for whom Christ died" shows this context is a matter of salvation (cf Rom 14:15, 20, 23). I don't see any warrant for reading this as saying "this weak person is put to death, a brother for whom Christ died" since it's a non sequitor. Paul does speak of God chastising with physical ailments, including death, later in the Epistle (which I discuss here), but not in this instance.

*         *         *

Another text in opposition to Limited Atonement is 2 Peter 2:1, which says:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

The plain reading of this verse says there will be Christians who will turn into false teachers, introduce dangerous heresies, and thus deny their Lord Jesus who ransomed them by His blood, and thus be damned as a result. The Calvinist understands this and the implications, so they propose two alternate interpretations, which I'll now examine. 

The first option they propose is that the Greek term "Master" here refers to God the Father, and thus is not speaking of the ransom for sin attained by Jesus on the Cross. There are a couple of problems with this claim: (a) The Greek term "Master" is used about 10 times in the New Testament, but only in about two instances does it clearly refer to the Father (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24), with about 5 of the instances referring to human masters of slaves. So there is no consensus by any means. There is somewhat of a parallel to 2 Peter 2:1 in the commonly accepted manuscripts of Jude 1:4, which also speaks of "denying our Master, Jesus Christ," and clearly identifies the "Master" as Jesus. (b) The language of "bought" can only refer to the ransom of Jesus by His blood (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9), since the context suggests nothing about buying goods at the market. This is even more clear by the fact the "swift destruction" mentioned is speaking of damnation, so the context is of salvation. (c) Even if it was granted that God the Father did this ransom, it would have to mean He played a role in the Atonement in the broad sense, which wouldn't change anything significant of the argument. 

The second option Calvinists propose is that this verse is only speaking of folks who falsely claim that they were ransomed by Jesus, but in fact were not. This is begging the question and simply projecting ideas onto the text. This option doesn't even flow with the language of the text, which speaks of a redemption as having taken place, not a claimed redemption.