2 Peter chapter 2 and verse 1 is our text for tonight. But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on them swift destruction. You may be seated. As announced this morning, my subject this night would be the most difficult verse, and the most difficult verse related to the doctrine of limited atonement. As I mentioned this morning, there are verses that are used against limited atonement. Most of those verses are not that difficult to answer. There are a few that are quite challenging and demand more of us. The most challenging verse, the most difficult verse regarding limited atonement that our friends on the other side brings up is 2 Peter 2 and verse 1. Let me read it again. But there were false prophets among the people, Old Testament times, even as there will be false teachers among you, Peter's day. who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." Now, as I mentioned this morning briefly, is that if there are those who are Arminian in persuasion, remember that they will be familiar with this verse if they've studied very much. In fact, they might not know other verses they could use, but they will be familiar with this particular verse. Because it says, who bought them, denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. Now, 2 Peter 2 is a profoundly terrifying portion of Scripture because it deals with false prophets, deals with these false teachers and what their end is going to be. It deals with apostasy, those who have professed the faith and then deny the faith and die apart from Christ, professed but not possessing. And so it is a very instructive portion of Scripture. Now, this passage we'll preach in our day and time, obviously, as well. And so what our friends on the other side, holding to an unlimited atonement, a universal atonement, that is that Christ died for all people without exception, they say, see, this proves it. That these apostates were actually bought by Christ at the cross. Who bought them? and bring on themselves swift destruction. So, they say, these are obviously people that perish in their sins. There are sinners, and then there are sinners who are false prophets, false teachers. And these are described as those who will bring upon themselves destruction, and even eternal destruction. So, Their view is, is that if Christ died for those who ultimately perish, it is a universal atonement. And it cannot be a particular atonement or a particular redemption, it has to be that. And so they're those that he died for, he bought them, and they end up in hell. And so therefore, this verse overthrows the doctrine of limited atonement. Let me begin by this observation. First of all, we have to go back to the nature of the atonement when you approach a verse like this. Now this is what Bible students, scholars call a problem passage. And that is that it carries with it certain challenges that you seek to answer. Now again, the problem is not God and his word. The problem is us understanding it, of course, from that end. But begin with the nature of the atonement. Why? Because the nature of the atonement will tell you that whatever this verse means, it cannot mean that there is a universal atonement. How so? The nature of the atonement. Redemption. The nature of redemption eliminates a universal atonement and points to a limited atonement. Propitiation. There is no potential propitiation. Propitiation eliminates that there can be a universal atonement. that Christ died for everyone without exception, even those that end up in hell. Propitiation eliminates that. The very nature of propitiation tells you that is not so. We've looked at both these things, redemption, propitiation. Reconciliation. Reconciliation tells you that there cannot be an unlimited atonement. Reconciliation by its very nature tells you it is a particular redemption, meaning that Christ died for a particular people and actually saves those people. Reconciliation, propitiation, redemption tells you that it was a definite atonement, that is that Christ died for a definite group of people. He actually saves them at the cross. And so the very nature of the atonement would tell you that. Now, let me give you an example, too, that for overwhelming perhaps everybody here, I know the majority would say this, is that you do not believe that you can lose your salvation. Is that not right? That's the position of the church. That's the creedal understanding, the confessional understanding. And we believe that because we believe the Bible clearly demonstrates that. If you truly are a regenerate person, you truly have the blood of Christ applied to you, if you truly are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that you will persevere unto the end, that you will not apostize, you will not fall away, that you will do that because you are secure, eternal security, you're eternally secure. Once eternal life is imparted, you can't lose it. No, we believe that there's a perversion of that. I'm eternally secure. It doesn't matter what I think, what I believe. It doesn't matter what I do morally, spiritually. I'm okay. Once saved, always saved. And even some radicals say, even if you deny Christ, well, most evangelicals do not say that. But we don't believe that. We believe that you will persevere because you are saved. Not to be saved, but because you are saved. you will persevere all the way to the end. You are being preserved by the power of God. The power of God is keeping you. The power of God is keeping me if I'm saved, but you will persevere to the end. So they say, well, these people, surely they were saved. They look to be saved. No, the Bible has numerous examples and warnings about those who say they are saved and prove not to be. So the Bible is full of examples along that line. So we know that whatever this verse is saying, it is not saying, what the unlimited universal atonement people are saying. Go back to losing your salvation. There are more problem verses for eternal security than there are for the atonement. I mean, an Arminian, a really informed Arminian, an Arminian who believes you can lose your salvation. You can be saved and lose it, be saved again and lose it, okay? An Arminian who believes that. They have many more verses that are challenging than the verses against limited atonement. They can keep you hopping for quite a while. However, At your first glance, let's say that you're not familiar that that verse is being argued, you can lose your salvation. What's the first thing you do? You say, I can't, well, I've not studied that out, I can't answer that. It sure looks like you can lose your salvation there, so I throw aside the doctrine of eternal security. Is that what we do? No, we don't do that, do we? What we do is we think correctly. And we've been taught that if it's a problem passage, you go to the clearer passage. And so what we do on losing your salvation is what we say is whatever that verse is saying. It cannot be teaching you can lose your salvation. And then as you study it out, if you need counsel, you seek counsel, whatever, you study it out and you see, there it is. There is a clear explanation of what they say the verse is saying and what the verse is actually saying. It is not saying you can lose your salvation. And so I would say this about 2 Peter 2 in verse 1. Whatever I cannot explain, This verse is not saying you can lose your salvation. Whatever I cannot demonstrate, clearly what it is saying, it cannot be saying that the atonement is universal. Redemption does not allow that. Propitiation does not allow that. Reconciliation does not allow that. And I could go on and on regarding what we have been stressing for a period of time on the third point of Calvinism, which is limited atonement. But what are we to do with this verse? I think that there are some very helpful signs. What I'm going to do, I'm going to give you two explanations. Unless I get too long on the first one, then we won't worry about the second one. The second one is shorter. Now, I generally don't do this, leave two explanations, but I want to give you two powerful explanations for this verse and what you can use, all right? So, I have to be a little bit more technical, allow for that. I'm confident that you will stay with it, so you do have to concentrate a little bit. I treat you as adults, and so stay with me through these points and these arguments. So chapter two, verse one of 2 Peter, two things that we have to notice that will help us, even denying the Lord who bought them. So the first one is Lord. And the second one is bought. So the word Lord and the word bought. That's how we'll answer the objections. So let's begin with denying the Lord or the word Lord or the name title Lord. This Greek word is despotes. And we get in the English, it eventually comes out to be a despot. Now it's not referring to the Lord as a despot, of course, that's a negative connotation. But this Greek word is despotes. In 2 Peter 2.1, we believe it's a reference to God the Son. It can refer, in other contexts, to God the Father. Jude 4 confirms this. So without going into the technicalities of the Greek New Testament, we believe it's a reference to the Son. Despotis, here, is the designation. So the Lord, here, is Despotis. Now, secondly, it does not refer to Christ as a mediator. That is, the Greek word despotis does not refer to Christ as a mediator. There are 30 occurrences of it in all of scripture. And never does it refer to God the Father or God the Son as a mediator. In this verse, it does not refer to Christ as a mediator. So either God the Father of the 30 occasions in the Green New Testament, it does not refer to God the Father as a mediator, or more directly, God the Son as a mediator. It is never used that way in the Green New Testament. Third thing, this is completely ignored that Depothes is never used as a redemptive title. Mediator would be a redemptive title, okay? So it is completely ignored that despotis is never used as a redemptive title. Not even of Christ, and I mentioned Jude 4, it's not even used of Christ in that way in Jude 4. But it's definitely referenced to Christ in Jude 4, and it seems to be clearly here as well. The only other place it is used of Christ when Christ is mentioned as mediator or redemptive is in a redemption context. So this is not referring to Christ as mediator. That means then that it's a non-salvation context here. It's about apostates who deny the Lord and salvation is not being brought into this picture. And the very title despotes, informs us regarding that. Fourthly, the dominant use of despotis in both the New Testament and the Old Testament, such as the Old Testament written in Greek, the Septuagint, despotis in both the New Testament and Old Testament is of God as absolute sovereign. So this consistently shows up, not as saving mediator, but as absolute sovereign. Sovereign Lord who is the owner of each member of the human race. That's where it shows up. Say, well, really? Yes. Let me give you one example. Acts 4.24. So when they heard that, they raised their voices to God with one accord and said, Lord, despotes. Lord, you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is within it. It is in a creation context, not a redemptive context. And so Acts 4.24 is a clear example. This could be multiplied over and over again in this case. So the major point to remember is that it is not used ever in a redemptive sense. That would mean that this would be the only case that it would be. There is no grounds to hold to that view. Peter is also alluding to Deuteronomy chapter 32, and most commentators, they don't argue with that, and he draws from that. And so it's important to remember that context. Nothing in the context of Deuteronomy 32 lends itself to that position anyway. Well, it is referring to Christ as sovereign Lord over all of his creation. That's what this verse is saying, because despotis is used. In the New Testament, the Son, like the Father, is absolute Lord over heaven and earth, as we just saw, Acts 4.24. It's important to remember this. Because without an understanding of that, it is easy to misplace what is being said. So Christ is not being set forth as savior or mediator, but Christ is being set forth in this verse as the sovereign creator. And remember, Ephesians, or John 1, verses 1 through 3, God creates the world through Christ, verse 3 of John 1. Colossians 1, 16 and 17, Christ is called the Creator. The Father creates all things through the Son. That is a powerful argument against universal atonement right there. Despotis does not lend itself to that particular position. Now the second Greek word that we need to look at is denying the Lord who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction is the word bought. The word bought is agorazzo, okay? Let me give you a brief summary of agorazzo. So in other words, at first glance, it looks like our friends on the other side have the upper hand. Christ bought them. That means he bought them by his blood, that's what they say. He bought them by his blood, close case. So even those that perish, even apostate false prophets who perish, Christ bought them at the cross. And so it has to be a universal atonement. Let me give you just a brief summary of agorazo. It's found 30 times in the Greek New Testament. But it is used in a salvation context only five times, unless This is the sixth time, all right? So follow, it's used 30 times in the Greek New Testament, but it is used in a salvation context only five times. What are the five times? 1 Corinthians 6.20, 1 Corinthians 7.23, Revelation 5.9, and Revelation 14 verses three and four. Take 620 of 1 Corinthians. It says, we are bought, agorazo, with a price. Now, no orthodox person, evangelical Arminian or Calvinist, of course, would deny that the price there in 1 Corinthians 620 is the blood of Jesus. That's the price that was paid. Bought us with a price. And the same thing for the other five verses. Price is a reference to the blood of Christ, or it is equal to the Lamb of God, the blood of the Lamb of God. Dr. Gary Long, in his important work, The Doctrine of Salvation, part three, says this. Now admittedly, agorazo is translated to buy or to redeem. So the word can be translated that way. Now admittedly, agorazo is translated to buy or to redeem in these five salvation verses. But in each of these five references, the salvation context clearly restricts the extent of agorazo, regardless of what it may mean in 2 Peter 2.1, to believers and never to non-believers. Do you follow what he's saying here? What he's saying there is that when you have agorazo for salvation, the price is always put there. It's consistent. And so in those five verses, agorazo is combined with the blood of Christ. Or a phrase like this, let's go back to 1 Corinthians 6.20. You are bought with a price. Agorazo is combined with price. Or agorazo will be combined with the blood There is nothing like that in this context. There is no accompanying clarity. It just uses agorazo bought, which can mean more than simply being redeemed by the blood of Christ. Other contexts would show that. And so the reference is not identified with the connecting price, Lamb of God, or blood. Always in the context, in the other five verses, always you have that with clarity. That is not found in this verse. That is extremely significant. And that causes their argument to collapse. And so the word means to buy doesn't always mean redemptively. It's used to buy in a non-redemptive context. Agorazo is used in that way. Most of the time it is. And so this is not a reference to a buying, which is salvation. It is not a reference to a buying, which is a purchasing by blood. That is not accompanied in this verse. 2 Peter 2.1 is about unbelieving apostates who perish. And the mediator is not identified in this verse. The sovereign Lord over them is, and over everything, and over all creation. The accompanying important context of having price, Lamb of God, redemption by blood, and so on, like in the other five verses, Clearly five verses, all right? Then it would be in the context again of salvation. And so this bought them is not a salvation buying or redeeming of sinners. Very important to consider despotis in that light. Bought. Now the context I said is Deuteronomy 32, and especially verse six of Deuteronomy 32. It says, do you thus deal with the Lord, O foolish, unwise people? Is it not your father who bought you? Has he not made you and established you? That is what Peter is drawing from. He is drawing from the context of Deuteronomy 32. And again, many commentators, they don't argue against that. So it's clear what he's drawing from. Bot agorazo is to be understood in the sense of Deuteronomy 32 in verse six. It means to make. It means to acquire. It means to obtain. It means to create. That's the background of it. And that's what Peter is drawing upon, is that the Lord has created in a sovereign Lord over even these apostates. That's why he's drawing from this verse. So the covenant people, the old covenant people, Israel, old covenant, old covenant times. So the father bought you. made you, he acquired you, he created you, he obtained you. And in context here, he also bought you out of slavery in Egypt. It's also in that context. That's what Peter is drawing upon from this. And so it is a non-redemptive bought or created. Say, well, that sounds like that that is stretching pretty far to end up saying it from that direction. Actually, it is not. So the idea there in 2 Peter 2 and verse 1 is that the despotes, the sovereign creator. He created these apostates. He acquired them, and he rules over them. And then 2 Peter 2, verse 12, if you would note this, 2 Peter 2, verse 12, We have an indication of this, but these, that is, these apostates now, and they're converse, as someone has said, but these apostates, like natural brute beasts, made to be caught and destroyed. There it is. That ties directly in with verse one, that God is sovereign, that he is a despotis over them, and that they were made to be caught and destroyed in the purpose of God. But these, like natural brutes, beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption. They are sovereignly made by God for a purpose. In this case, it is not the purpose of saving grace. It is the purpose of God's glory in judgment. You say, well, is there more? Yes, yes there is. In Jude verse four, it says, for certain men have crept in unnoticed, these are false prophets, apostates, so on, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation. Ungodly men who turn the grace of God into licentiousness deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. What does the text say? It says, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation. To God's glory, they are marked out for his condemnation. Now that's the stranger part of his glory that we sometimes wrestle with, but let's be very, very clear, is that God is sovereign over them, and God uses them for his own purpose, and he'll send them to hell for what they do. They were marked out for this condemnation. It wasn't happenstance, they appeared and God was surprised. And then I remind you that we looked at on the doctrine of election, we looked at the mountain of iron on the doctrine of God choosing sinners before the foundation of the world. And in Romans chapter 9, we looked at, you will say to me then, why does he find fault for who has resisted his will? But indeed, oh man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed? Formed. Say to him who formed it, why have you made me thus like this? Now listen carefully to this verse, next two verses. Does not the potter have power over the clay to make the same vessel, one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? And then in Romans 9.22, what if God, wanting to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? There it is. It's no different than verse 12 of 2 Peter 2. It's no different than Jude verse 4, is that he has prepared these vessels for destruction. He doesn't owe the sinner anything. Any one of us could have been one of these false prophets. We are capable of that. But then he goes on in verse 23 and he says that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he had prepared beforehand for glory. Vessels of wrath that are prepared. And vessels of mercy that are prepared by him. and ordered by him. And so that is what Peter is touching on. These apostates are vessels of wrath. They have been marked out and appointed for that purpose. So this verse, if you approach it from these angles, this verse does not teach a universal atonement. It does not teach that. Bought here is not a redemptive buying. It is not a salvation buying. It is a non-salvation verse about apostates, that God himself has, Deuteronomy 32, God himself has created, acquired, and obtained for his own glory. He gets glory in everything that he does. He gets glory in saving sinners. Does he fail to get glory in judging sinners who die in their sins, et cetera? Does he? He does not fail, does he? He gets glory in that. And Peter is identifying that the sovereign creator acquired in his Lord over all of these apostates. Not meaning that he approves of their evil, that is not the point, but that they belong to him, despotis, the Lord. They belong to him as the ultimate sovereign creator, and he will deal with them, use them for his glory. not a proof of their sin, but ultimately bring His glory out of it. It's a sovereign creation view of the Creator. That's what is being talked about in 2 Peter 2 on. No indication of a mediator, no indication of the blood, none of that is there. It's non-sorterological. That is, it's non-salvation context. And so the verse does not overthrow. Now, there's other theories. that I could bring to you tonight, but I've just gone for what I think is, like, this is a very, very important one, the sovereign creation view of the Lord being sovereign over apostates. That fits perfectly in with 2 Peter 2 and verse 1. There is a second view that I want to bring to your attention. And again, this is not my favorite way of presenting two views, and then approaching it sort of from that angle. Because of the difficulty of this verse and the challenge that it has brought, I want to give you another view, all right? And this view is called the phenomenological view. That big word is hard to say. Phenomenological view. And it has to do with appearance. Phenomena, appearance, the phenomena that happens before your eyes. Now I'm going to present this. I did not, years ago, in my former pastorate, when I brought some 95 messages on the doctrines of grace, 27 of them were on a limited atonement. So you've gotten off very easy, actually, here. I could go much, much longer, OK? But we're not going to be here to punish you, all right? So in that. And what I did is I dealt with every objection under the sun. I did not bring this up. This is sort of a new development in one sense, a development that has sort of been in seed form, but is sort of run with. And so I'm going to read to you from a very outstanding theologian, a sovereign grace theologian. And what I'm going to read to you, it's brief. It's from a book that came out in 2013. I want to recommend this book to you. It's called From Heaven He Came and Sought Her. From Heaven He Came and Sought Her. It is edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. The foreword is by the late J.I. Packer. He died not too many days ago. And his forewords are better than some of the books that he's writing the foreword for, aren't they? Or they're classic along that line. Packer writes it. This book is about 703 pages. And so again, it came out in 2013. It is the greatest updated version on defending limited atonement, particular redemption, definite atonement that I've seen. It is magnificent. You should add it to your library. The subtitle is Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. And it will bring you up to date on the battles that is being fought over this issue of the extent for whom did Christ die. And it is brilliantly put together. It will give you great information. It will also tell you who the players are in this, especially with four-point Calvinists, four-point Calvinists, those who deny limited atonement, and the issues. And so it has everyone from John Piper in it to others that could be named. The particular passage that I'm going to, regarding our passage, is from a chapter by Thomas R. Scritner. He is a theologian who teaches at Albert Mohler's wonderful seminary in Louisville, the Southern Baptist Seminary there. And he's one of the theological teachers that is there. and a very wonderful teacher of the things of God. So he was assigned to do this chapter. The chapter is titled, Problematic Text for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles. So that's the background of what I'm going to read to you. So he holds, and I was not aware of this until I saw this in this book, he holds, not to the view that I just gave you, he holds to this phenomenological view. So let me, it's not long, so just stay with me for a few more minutes and we'll be done. So he's dealing with 2 Peter 2.1, the Lord who bought them and they deny him. What does it mean? He says, that is there a reading that treats this text plausibly, consistently, and interprets what Peter says about the false teachers in verse one and verses 20 through 22. We should look at verses 20 through 22, all right? So again, and this is on these false prophets, these apostates, they were within the new covenant setting. no doubt baptized people and then fell away. So here's the apostasy. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, now again, this is the apostates, the false teachers. If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled with them and are overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than having known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, A dog returns to its own vomit and to sow after having washed to a wallowing in the mire. So again, it's a picture of apostasy, the proverbial sayings, why does a dog go back in that which made it sick and eat his vomit? Because he's still a dog. Why does a pig clean him or her up? and put a ribbon around her, a bow on her, doesn't make any difference. She will eventually go back to the mud, won't she? And won't he? And because it's a pig's nature to do that. These all the way along, although these glowing things, apparently glowing things were said about them, they appear phenomenologically, they appear to be saved. Now, this is not unusual. There are people that I have known that appear to be saved. There's absolutely no reason, no justified reason to believe they're not saved, and they prove to be apostates. They fall away from the faith. Remember, an apostate is one who's never coming back. They will not find their way back. Find true repentance and faith. The Bible warns about that. There are some who fall away and are recovered. That falling away is not apostasy. Apostasy is you're not coming back. So that's how that's generally used by the theologians. So in this case, these are clearly apostates. They're not coming back. they're going to show themselves to be dogs and pigs regarding the faith. And that's the context. And you'll see the terrible things of how they are described and what they're doing and the damage they eventually do. So what Scrivener is, that's the background of what Scrivener is talking about here. Is there a reading Is there a reading that treats this text plausibly, consistently, turpicit, what Peter says about false teachers, both in verse one and verses 22 and 23. Earlier he says, so they are like unclean dogs and pigs who have revisited their filth. Peter describes the false teachers as having been purchased by Christ, verse one, as knowing Jesus as Lord and Savior, verse 20, as knowing the righteous way, verse 21. It is precisely here where it is evident that Chang, this is the scholar that he's arguing against, Chang's solution does not work. For Peter is not saying that the false teachers potentially knew Christ as Lord and Savior, or they potentially knew the righteous way. It is evident from Peter's language that the false teachers gave every indication initially. that they were truly Christians. Ching's view lacks inner coherence and consistency, for he fails to integrate what Peter says about the false teachers being bought by Christ, verse 1, that they're knowing Christ as Lord and Savior, verse 20, and knowing the way of righteousness, verse 21. All right, now let's pick this up. Is there a reading that treats the text plausibly and consistently? What Peter says about the false teachers in both verses one and verses 22 and 23. So here's now, here's this theologian, great five-point Calvinist, here's his explanation. I suggest there is. Peter's language is phenomenological. In other words, it appeared as if the Lord had purchased the false teachers with His blood, verse 1, though they actually did not truly belong to the Lord. Similarly, the false teachers gave every appearance of knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, verse 20. and appeared to have known the way of righteousness, verse 21. Such an interpretation is preferred to Chang's reading, for the same interpretation is proposed in verses one and verses 20 through 21. In both instances, a phenomenological reading makes good of the text, where it does not speak of a potential redemption, verse one. or a potential knowing of Christ, verses 20 through 21. For Peter says that they knew the Lord, and hence he does not refer to potentiality in verses 20 through 21. The issue is whether the language of being bought by Christ and knowing the Lord is plausibly interpreted as phenomenological. Remember that they give the appearance of this. Why would Peter use phenomenological language if the false teachers were not truly saved? That's what pops into your mind of what I've just read to you so far. Is this an artificial interpretation introduced to support a theological bias? I have already said that the Arminian reading of this text is straightforward and clear. One can understand why it is appealed why it is one, however, it is better, why it has appealed to so many commentators throughout history. However, it is better to say that the false teachers gave every appearance of being saved. So this is his argument. They give every false, they give every appearance of being saved, and that's why Peter uses this language, is what he's saying. He goes on. They seemed to be part of the redeemed community, but their apostasy demonstrated that they never truly belonged to the Lord. The words of 1st John 2 19 fit them they went out from us But they were not of us for had they been of us. They would have continued with us, but they went out that it might Become plain that all are not of us Then he goes on similarly Jesus said in about those who prophesied his name, exercised demons, performed miracles, but lived lawless lives. I never knew you, Matthew 7, 23. He does not say that he knew them once, but he does so no longer. On the contrary, they were never truly members of the people of God. Yet for a time, they gave the impression of being so. There are other texts which teach that some who truly appear to be believers later turn out to have spurious faith. Mark 4, verses 1-20, 1 Corinthians 11-19, 2 Timothy 2, and verse 19. Furthermore, Peter's use of phenomenological language makes sense, for the false teachers were vitally involved in the church. It was not as if outsiders who never claimed to be Christians arrived and began to propagate teachings contrary to the gospel. On the contrary, the false teachers were insiders who departed from what they first taught. Hence, Peter underscores the gravity of what occurred. Those who were fomenting the false way were, so to speak, Christians. They were to all appearances, all appearances, but by Christ, 2 Peter 2 on. Seemed to know him as Lord and Savior, verse 20. Peter is not claiming that they were actually Christians, that they were truly redeemed, verse one, or that they truly knew Jesus as Lord and Savior, verse 20, but that they gave every reason initially for observers to think that such was the case. Their subsequent departure showed that they were actually dogs and pigs, verse 22. In other words, they were never truly changed and eventually revealed their true nature. That is the phenomenological view. What I would say is this, is that that is not a weak argument. There has been, in church history, an argument called the charity view. It somewhat dovetails with this. And Gary Long, in his work called Definite Atonement, a very important work, he does not just outright dismiss this view, although he asserts the position that I set forth. in my first defense of limited atonement here tonight. And the charity view is that Peter is being charitable in that he is just simply going by their profession, showing just a charitable attitude towards them, going by their position. So that's what the charity view is. However, I think there are flaws in that in the charity view here or there, but this though is something different, this phenomenological view. So what I'm sharing with you is this, is that either the first one or the second one utterly adequately answers this. 500 years from now, as there are those who will study long after we're gone, for the next five centuries, this passage of scripture, they might have other breakthrough insights which will not show universal atonement. It will show particular redemption. But they might have breakthrough insights B.B. Warfield, a great Calvinist, in the early part of the 20th century, died in the early part of the 20th century, said that we are the early church. We have much to learn, even though we are 2,000 years beyond the closing of the canon, et cetera. We have much to learn. And this passage of scripture will be under the holy scrutiny of those who will look at this text to come up with more insights. What I would say to you is this. The nature of the atonement tells you that if these two positions are wrong, it's still not teaching universal atonement. Can't be. On the other hand, these are two very tight and cogent reasonings with this text. Dealing with the Greek, or from Dr. Scrivener's point of view, an angle that we don't consider, and that is a phenomenological angle that Peter is showing what they appear to be, but he ends up showing what they actually are and end up as apostates. So I would submit to you that either one of these positions should give you peace about 2 Peter 2.1. Do not stay awake the night worrying about 2 Peter 2.1. That's what I'm telling you. It does not overthrow particular redemption in any way. Let's pray.