2 Peter chapter 1. Some people find this a discouraging book. I find it a fabulously encouraging book, if it's rightly understood. And he begins with the sovereignty of God's grace. Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Amen. Father, I thank you for this, your word, your holy word. It is our desire to grow through our understanding of it, to be more and more conformed to it. Help us, Father, to have our lives more consistently lining up with your will. May your will be done in our lives, individually, as families, as a church, more and more, just as it is, your will is being done in heaven. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, last week we looked at a theology of suffering and persecution in the book of 1 Peter. I think it's a very important aspect of a comprehensive worldview. And we saw one of the good things that comes out of suffering is that God uses it to expose a false Christianity. It's like a purging process, a sifting process. He sifts the wheat and the tares and false believers from true believers. Well, this epistle highlights the fact that there has already been a huge sifting within the church. There has been a great falling away. known as The Great Apostasy in the Years of Suffering Leading Up to AD 70. And it's actually a fairly simple book to outline. Three points. One of my rare three-point sermons. Of course, there's always a million sub-points, right? But first point, chapter one. He tells us about what a consistent Christianity looks like. What does a God-centered Christianity look like? It's 100% God-centered, and obviously we're not always 100% consistent, but this is what we should be striving for. Then chapter 2 shows the essence of false Christianity, that it is drifted away from a God-centered perspective into a man-centered faith. And obviously today there are churches that line up on that continuum all along that spectrum, okay? And we don't know which churches have fallen completely out of God's favor and which ones do not. God knows. but there is a continuum along there. And this book is designed to put the fear of God into churches and to make them strive to be as God-centered as it is possible. And then in chapter 3, Peter takes one doctrine, the doctrine of eschatology, and he illustrates the difference between a God-centered approach and a man-centered approach. And all three of these sections really highlight the sovereignty of God versus the sovereignty of man, the glory of God versus the glory of man, the will of God versus the will of man. And we're gonna dive straight into the book, which by the way was written just a few weeks or months after 1 Peter was written, probably in the first quarter of AD 66. Chapter one demonstrates that the essence of the true faith is that it is radically God-centered. This is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. Every other religion is man seeking God in some way, man trying to merit God's favor or gain God's favor in some way, And even within orthodoxy, there are some compromised views of Christianity, like Arminianism, that is constantly inserting man's will, man's opinions, man's laws, man's self-esteem, or some other facet of man's importance in its Christianity. But at the heart of true Christianity is the sovereignty of God. By the way, the five solas of the Protestant Reformation flowed from that that doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Well, Peter starts by giving a view of salvation that is Calvinistic to the core. And you might laugh at me, how could there be anything Calvinistic before Calvin? Isn't that an anachronism? Well, my point is, and it's true, it is an anachronism, but my point is that Calvin did not invent Calvinism. The reformers did not invent the five solas. They were just trying to go back to the Bible and to what the early church fathers, in fact, there are a ton of early church fathers that were thoroughly Calvinistic, to use that term anachronistically. People like Arnobius, AD 290, Epiphanius, AD 390, Brixiensis, and Chrysostom, and Augustine, the Council of Orange, and there were many, many others. As Charles Spurgeon pointed out, Calvinism is simply the gospel. It is a refusal to inject man-centeredness into how we get saved. Pelagianism was declared to be a heresy in the early church. It was all-out man-centeredness, very consistent man-centeredness in its form of Christianity. But both Pelagianism, which is all-out, and semi-Pelagianism, which is a mixture of orthodoxy and Pelagianism, are man-centered. And I should point out, these heresies did not really arise in the 5th century. A lot of people trace plagianism back then. They were in the time of the apostles, and chapter 2 is going to be showing how centered on man, this version that pretended to be the true Christianity, how centered on man and his will and his dignity above God's dignity really was. Peter knows nothing of that. The view of grace that he will articulate in verses 1 through 4 is so humbling to man's pride that man can take credit for nothing. What are the first words in this epistle? Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. As an apostle, he didn't speak his own words. He could only speak what Christ told him to speak. And the word for servant is literally slave. Everybody agrees with that. He saw himself as having a life that revolved around serving the Lord Jesus Christ. And in chapter two, he's going to be contrasting this attitude with the self-serving, self-seeking, exploitive attitude of the Christianity that had developed in that chapter. But our salvation is basically unconditional surrender to God. We put our neck down on the ground and we let God put his foot upon our neck, so to speak, and we say, Lord, we are your slaves. Speak to us. We want to do your will. It sees everything. in light of the glory of God. So I know I've repeated myself a lot, but this is the essence of this book. So his first words that relate to salvation show that we don't pursue God, instead God pursues us. It says, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. So Peter couldn't even take credit for his own faith. The faith that drew salvation was given to him in the first place. The word obtained there is lankano, and it means to receive something by appointment, not by merit. It's a pure gift of God's grace sovereignly bestowed, and the only reason we could receive that gift is because Jesus earned it. and he did so through his own righteousness. Now Acts 13, 48 takes it back even further to before the foundation of the world, it says, as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Okay, so predestination results in faith, not faith resulting in predestination, which is your typical Arminian viewpoint. Verse two is a marvelous promise that our life should exhibit the continual overflow of God's grace and peace. Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. So even as Christians, we cannot take credit for what we do. It's the result of a continual flow of his grace. Even our diligence is made possible by his grace. And how do we get that grace and peace? Well, verse three says, as his divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by glory and virtue. There is nothing good in us that we did not receive as a gift, a pure gift from his hand. He gave us life, he gave us godliness, he gave us even the knowledge to know him. As the hymn writer said, and we'll be singing this after the sermon, "'Tis not that I did choose thee, For, Lord, that could not be. This heart would still refuse thee, hadst thou not chosen me." Well, this is so different from the man-centered versions of Christianity that Peter exposes in chapter 2. It was God's glory and virtue that flowed to us, not our glory and virtue that flowed to God. Verse four says, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. So by union with Jesus, we're united to God. By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we become partakers of God. There's nothing in us, it's him that makes all of this possible. He's the potter, we are the clay. And so nothing starts from man. These first four verses really deserve a sermon all on their own. We're not going to be able to get into them further. Let's move on to the next paragraph, verses five through nine. It deals with our sanctification. Now, some people say sanctifications, God and us working together, like a 50-50 proposition. A better formula is it's 100% God, 100% us. We work out what he works in. So I preached a lengthy sermon on this a few years ago, and we're only going to barely be able to summarize it this morning. What seems strange to some people is that they will acknowledge Peter is clearly saying all of these graces he's going to talk about come from God. but then we're supposed to be very diligent in getting these graces, but those two are not in contradiction whatsoever. You don't pit divine sovereignty against human responsibility. Paul will make the same point in Philippians 2, 12 through 13, where he says, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for, here's the reason we can do that, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. we could only work out what God has already sovereignly worked in us by His grace. Or to use Peter's language, we can only diligently use, that's verses 5 and following, what God has already given to us, verses 1 through 4. But true Christianity that has experienced God's grace is always very active. This is one of the ways you can tell the difference between a fake Christian and a true Christian. True Christians will exhibit some degree of verses five and following. He says, but also for this very reason, and the reason is what he's given in verses one through four, giving all diligence add to your faith virtue. Now he uses two words to talk about this diligence that are very, very interesting. He uses a word that means great effort, spude, and another word that means great cost, epikorigeo. And by combining those two together, he's saying there is no effort that is too great. There is no cost that is too great to pursue your sanctification in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the kind of diligence he wants us to have. So we're not passive at all. We're very active, but we're diligently, earnestly working out what God has worked in. Verse five says, but also for this very reason, and again, for the very reason that everything including your faith comes from God, for this very reason, giving all diligence add, and how are we to add these things into our life? It's by faith. Now, the New King James doesn't draw this out quite as well as most other versions do. Other versions have, by your faith, add virtue and to virtue add knowledge. The faith that God has already given us as a gift can be exercised diligently to receive virtue, knowledge, perseverance, all of the other graces that are here. And if you are truly saved, you're going to be diligently pursuing sanctification. But again, these are not pull yourself up by your bootstraps actions. Instead, faith diligently receives each of these items every day from heaven. Paul says this in Colossians 3, if then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Here's the point, if we're adding each one by faith, then we're receiving these graces from heaven, from Christ's throne, we're not stirring them up from our own resources as Pelagius tried to claim. So let's go through each grace. First grace is faith, and I know I'm repeating myself here, Verse 1 already said that faith is the first grace that comes from his throne. It's by faith that we receive Christ, escape the corruption of the world, end up in his kingdom, experience his divine power that gives us everything. That's verses 1 through 4. But faith is designed to keep receiving everything from heaven. The just shall live by faith, and they keep living the rest of their lives by faith. The first thing that faith receives is virtue. Greek word for virtue indicates a heart that desires to please God and is willing to obey God even before we know what God will ask us. Okay, so it doesn't hold reservations and say, well, I'll obey if I understand it, or if it's comfortable, or I'll obey if this makes sense to science, or whatever the question might be. No, this person says, Lord, I'm your slave. You tell me what to do. I will be pleased to do it. And when we have virtue, then God gives us further knowledge, the next grace. As Jesus told his disciples, if anyone wants to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine. If anyone wants to do his will, that's the heart of virtue. He shall know. So virtue leads to more knowledge, which makes sense. Why would God give you more knowledge of his word if you don't like to obey his word? He's only going to give a stewardship trust of increased knowledge as you delight to do his will. The next grace is self-control. The more God opens our eyes to know, the more we will have to exercise self-control to obey it. Why? Because he's, by his grace, drawing our hearts away from the man-centeredness and more and more into doing his will. So there's really a logical relationship between each of these words I will not have the time to get into this morning. but they constitute the antithesis to the ancient and modern compromise Christianity in chapter two. Self-control leads to perseverance, perseverance leads to godliness, godliness leads to brotherly kindness. Let me just explain that. When you have struggled through the graces because you're giving all diligence right, you realize this is something that is not easy. We struggle. It is a battle. It's a fight. And so we're going to not be judgmental of our fellow brothers who aren't where we're at. We're going to be very sympathetic. We realize we only got where we're at. by God's grace, and so we have brotherly kindness, and that leads to agape love, which is self-sacrificing love on behalf of others. Now, here is the thing that Peter is concerned about. Too many Christians don't diligently exercise their faith as verse 5 commands, and therefore they don't grow very much. But verses eight through nine says you cannot stay neutral or static. You're either growing towards God's will or you are backsliding towards a man-centered Christianity. Those are the only two options. Let's read verses eight through nine. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is short-sighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." It is possible for Christians to take their eyes off of Christ and to look back to Sodom like Lot's wife did. Okay? That's a sure way to lose the graces that we already have. Losing a Christ-centeredness automatically means losing grace. If any one of these links is missing from our sanctification, then the whole sanctification collapses. And verse nine is really one of the scariest verses in this entire book because it indicates that a true believer who has been cleansed from his old sins can become almost blind. Not totally blind, but he can become almost blind when he persists in any sin, when he refuses to repent. And the way out of that nearsightedness is simply to receive a heart that says, okay, Lord, you just name it, I will do it. I don't care how difficult it is, I want to please you. And when you have that heart of virtue, God will open up more knowledge to you. And when he gives more knowledge, be sure to do it. Be sure to immediately, without any delay, without any rationalization, begin to implement it. And you begin moving forward again. Anytime any one of these links in this golden chain of sanctification are missing, you go backwards. And if you go backwards far enough, you will become nearsighted. So sanctification is by faith. It's a diligent faith that fights off anything that would keep our eyes off of Christ, who is the author and finisher of our faith. Now in the next section, we see that true Christianity perseveres by being reminded of God's sovereign grace over and over again through the rest of our lives. Peter keeps using the words, words for reminding, right? Let's read verses 10 through 15. Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure. Now let me stop there for a moment. What does it mean to make our call and election sure? I mean, wasn't election already done before the foundation of the world settled and complete? Yes, it was. Wasn't our calling by the Holy Spirit done before we responded at all? Yes, it is. So what does it mean to make your calling and election sure? Armenians The way they look at it is our actions result in the election and the calling. God looks down through the corridors of time and says, okay, that guy's persevered, I guess I'll elect him. No, this is the opposite here. It's talking about gaining assurance of your election and of your calling. How can you make sure that you are elect? Well, it's by living by faith and constantly receiving these graces from the Lord. The non-elect, he cannot do that. How do we know that we truly, how do we have assurance that the Spirit has called us into the kingdom? In the same way, by believing, persevering in a faith that daily receives everything from Christ. Because the Holy Spirit does not give assurance of salvation to anybody, even if you are elect, he doesn't give assurance if your eyes are away from Jesus unto a man-centered Christianity. Why would he give assurance? He wants to give assurance to those who are coming to him. Continuing to read, therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things, you will never stumble, for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For this reason, I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you knowing that shortly I must put off my tent just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover, I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease." Now, there is a ton I cannot comment on, but I will say that our whole life will need to be reminded to keep going back to grace over and over again if we're to have a God-centered Christianity. He does not want the tug of our flesh to make us man-centered. Now just as a side note, Peter says that he will soon die. If he was executed in Rome, like most people believe, it would have to be before AD 68 that he died. If he was executed in Jerusalem, as I believe, it could have happened any time between AD 66 and AD 70. Now Peter ends this chapter on true God-centered Christianity by pointing out that true Christianity is founded upon God's inspired, inerrant, and prophetic word alone. He says in verse 16, for we did not follow cunningly devised fables. So he's here contrasting true Christianity with Judaism. True Christianity has nothing of man or man's opinions mixed in. Judaism was the exact opposite. It was simply the dialectical opinions of various rabbis and scribes and fathers. And just as Jesus utterly rejected those traditions, Peter rejects them 100% as well. So the first part of verse 16 castigates Christians who look to man rather than to the Bible as their source of truth. Well, this is a rebuke to the modern evangelical church. that has abandoned the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. Even Reformed people sometimes embrace evolutionism, psychology, sociology, humanistic anthropology, other so-called sources of truth, and then with this preset paradigm, they come to the Bible and they say, well, the Bible's gotta fit this, and they try to fit it into the Scripture. Now, that is no different in principle than the man-centered Christianity of chapter two. Maybe they haven't gone as far as the Christians in chapter 2 went, but it's still man-centered rather than Bible-centered. And so Peter's first point with regard to God's Word is that true Christianity does not follow the traditions of men. It follows God's Word. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables. Second, true Christianity passes on God's words alone. You cannot be God-centered without being Bible-centered. Peter continues, for we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty for he received from God the Father honoring glory when such a voice came to him from the excellent glory. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain. The apostles received the Word of God directly in their prophetic vision. They communicated that vision when they wrote the Gospels. And these prophecies, whether heard, spoken, or written, constituted God himself speaking. Verse 19 says, and so we have the prophetic word confirmed. Now, the word for confirmed is bebias, and if you look it up in a dictionary, you will see that it means absolute certainty. Prophecy is not an I think so kind of a thing. Even the oral prophecy that Peter referred to in verses 17 through 18 is equivalent to the oral prophecies of Old Testament prophets in verse 21. when, quote, holy men of God spoke when they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So whether seen, spoken, or written, all true prophecy is inerrant, infallible, and absolutely certain. It is bebias. And here's the point that he will emphasize several times in the next chapter. False Christianity obscures the certainty of God's Word in myriad ways. For example, evangelical feminism writes entire books to try to prove that what Paul writes and what Peter writes about women means something different than what it seems to mean. And seminary professors will write book after book and concoct theory after theory to say, well, Genesis 1 might seem like it's a creation in six days, but if you really know what you should know, it says something different than what it seems to say. They're always trying to insert billions of years into a text that very obviously says that God created the universe in six days. And so we say with Peter, no, when God said that he made the universe in six days, it is certain, infallible, and true, and we refuse to be dissuaded by man-centered arguments from man-centered Christians. Peter is pushing us to true Christianity, to sola scriptura Christianity, to consistent Christianity. None of us is perfectly consistent, but that's where he's pushing us, it's trajectory. Verse 19 goes on to say that true Christians will use God's word and have the confidence that it miraculously creates light where there was absolute darkness, even in the hardest of hearts. It's a fantastic thing, just like Saul of Tarsus. There is power in the word of God. It says, which you do well to heed is a light that shines in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Now, obviously, there's a gradual progress with implied in the word dawns, right? Dawning light, you know, it keeps on getting. So in our own lives and in the kingdom as a whole, there's going to be this gradual growth. We don't become consistent Christians overnight. None of us do. But that's the goal, to have the light of the Bible transform every thought and lead every thought captive to Christ. I've talked to Christian politicians in Nebraska who refuse to bring God's Word to bear on politics. They say, well, natural law is sufficient in that sphere, but I believe it's only God's Word that has the power to convert, to tear down strongholds, because it's God himself speaking. So here's the question. Does the church have confidence in God's word? Are we word-centered in all of life? If we are not, we are automatically having a man-centered Christianity in at least those areas of life. Those are the options. If we're not word-centered in those areas of life, we're gonna be man-centered. So the moment we abandon applying the scriptures to various areas of life, we are sliding down the road to the kind of compromised Christianity that chapter 2 talks about. We may still be saved, we may still be fairly orthodox, but we're sliding on a bad trajectory, and the modern evangelical church is going down faster and faster. into chapter two, man-centeredness. They've lost confidence that God's word is relevant to transform our every thought. The last point that Peter makes about the prophetic word is that it does not originate in man and it is not clouded by man's weakness. It is inspired, inerrant, infallible, just as trustworthy as if God was right now in a theophany speaking face to face with you. Peter says, knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Notice that Peter doesn't only apply this concept to scripture, to written prophecy. He also applies it to spoken prophecy. This is one of many verses that shows that the New Testament definition of prophecy is the same as in the Old Testament. Now, let's think about the written prophetic scriptures. What does he mean by saying that no portion of scripture is of any private interpretation? Well, let me illustrate with evangelicals who say the opposite. and I'll pick on feminists, I don't know why I picked on them, but feminist Christians, and they are Christians, they're going to heaven, these are evangelicals, but a lot of feminist Christians have this mistaken idea that Paul received good revelation from God, but received it through a sieve of chauvinism that kind of tainted it, and didn't quite understand what God was saying, and when they communicated, it gave a slant. For example, there's a pastor here in Omaha, who told me, yeah, when Paul had his Macedonian call, he thought that it was a man who was calling him to Macedonia. But in reality, it was Lydia who was calling him there. He was mistaken. He just misinterpreted the prophecy. Well, according to this, that viewpoint is really a heresy. It is absolutely false. This says no prophecy has any private interpretation involved at all in its origin. And verse 21 applies the same principle to all oral prophecies. He says, prophecies of any sort never came by the will of man. And to say the opposite, as Wayne Grudem does, is to begin the slippery slope into the man-centered Christianity of chapter 2. Why? Because, as Grudem admits, it is mixing man's ideas with God's words and calling them prophecy. In fact, chapter 2 starts with the same issue of prophecy and shows how important it is to see all true prophecy as inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, certain, 100% from God, utterly unmixed with anything from man. The charismatic movement really needs to quit calling their guidance prophecy. It unwittingly undermines this one foundation of true God-centered Christianity. Now, I don't doubt God the Spirit is sometimes leading them. guiding some of them, but they do not have prophecy. Peter is quite clear, quote, prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. By the way, I do not treat Wayne Grudem as one of the false Christians that were in chapter two. I think he is actually valiantly trying to move the charismatic movement away from a man-centered Christianity and perspective. But he started on a wrong footing. That's the point. His attempt to rescue them from a man-centered Christianity is doomed from the start because he has a false view of prophecy. But let's go on to chapter 2 and look next at how a man-centered Christianity can slide so far from the faith that eventually it abandons all the fundamentals of a God-centered Christianity. Now, it doesn't start off doing that, or they would never have been members in the apostolic church. They started off good, right? But that's the eventual trajectory of any form of man-centeredness in our Christianity. And all of us probably have some man-centeredness. We're not consistent. Now, since he ended chapter one with a proper view of prophecy, he begins chapter two with the subject of false prophecy. Peter says, but there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you. Now, in the Old Testament, a prophet was defined as being a false prophet when he brought any words that were not from God, but claimed that they were from God, claimed that they were a prophecy. Well, these false teachers are parallel in that they are teaching words that God has not given them. Neither the Old Testament false prophets nor the New Testament false teachers bring the people God's inerrant word. They mix it with other ideas. Now, this is a thing to watch out for in a pastor. If he can spend an entire sermon giving his opinions and rarely backing them up with the scripture, you already have a pastor-centered ministry rather than a word-centered ministry. I listened to one very, very famous, I won't tell you who it is, but a very, very famous evangelical preacher. He read the scripture, put his Bible down, he preached for the entire half hour of his sermon without ever referencing the passage, any other scripture. There was no Bible verse scripture whatsoever in his sermon. So he was using his office and his fame to get across his opinion. Now, here's the thing. His opinion was perfectly right, but he wasn't modeling how to get to the right opinion by having a word-centered preaching. He's a good man. I actually love this guy, but I was so saddened by that sermon. That is a man who is on a slippery slope to a man-centered Christianity. That's what cults do. Virtually every cult gives an illusion of standing for the Bible, but their true authority is the men or the women leaders of that cult. Now, the second dangerous signal is that these teachers deviated from historic doctrine. Verse 1 goes on to say, even as there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive heresies. Now, the word for heresy means a sectarian teaching that deviates from a historical standard. That's the meaning of it. The last two decades have seen a flurry of new doctrines that have never been taught by the church of the past, and that is one of ten signs of a cult. They assume, oh, the whole church is apostate, and they reject the creeds and the confessions, and they do so by appearing to be biblical because they rightly say creeds and confessions can err, and they can. But then they treat them as if they're useless. Oh, that's going way too far. And they speak of the arrogance of creeds, when in reality, they set up the arrogance of individualism. A third danger signal is that they've embraced a false Christology, in other words, a false teaching about Jesus. And almost all cults deviate on the doctrine of Christ in some way. Now, he doesn't amplify in exactly how they denied Jesus, but the use of the very, very strong word despotis. This is the only place that's used of Christ. despotes may indicate that they denied the need to submit to His Lordship. Now if that is the case, then this is very parallel to the carnal Christian theory that says you can accept Jesus as Savior, but not, you know, reject Him as Lord. When I was a kid, I was puzzled with the zeal that one man, he did recording of the sermons and different things like that, but the zeal with which he denied that you have to accept Christ as Lord, and that he constantly over and over was saying, we're under grace, we're not under law, don't speak of the law. Well, come to find out later, he had been molesting the boys in the congregation. No wonder he hated the law of God. Commentators point out that there are many, many ways we can deviate from an orthodox view of Jesus. I've run across numerous so-called evangelical pastors who hold to heretical views of God and of Christ. Several full preterists have denied that the body Jesus showed to his disciples in Luke 24 was his real resurrection body. Well, when you think about that, that involves Jesus in deceit because he's trying to convince them this is his resurrection body, right, in Luke 24. And they deny that that was his real body because that body had flesh and bones, which they say no resurrection body should. In the early church, there were at least eight denials of Christ's true resurrection. Let me list them for you so you can learn from history. Docetism denied that Jesus was truly man. Well, he can't be savior unless he's both God and man, right? Arianism denied that Christ was truly God. Apollinarianism denied that Christ had a human soul and mind. Now, I've run across quite a number of evangelical pastors who are Apollinarians. They're heretics. They have a different Jesus than we do. Nestorianism denied that Christ was only one person. Eutychianism denied that Christ had two distinct natures. Monothelitism denied that Jesus had a human will. These are all things that the church has declared and Protestants have declared was heresy. Patripassianism, also called monarchism, denied that Christ was a distinct person from the Father. Pelagianism said that salvation was possible without Christ's sacrifice and grace. Now, Christ's sacrifice and grace is good for those who need it, but it's not essential. The point is the church needs to always be vigilant against novel Christologies. Next is a sociological factor of engendering blind loyalty to a preacher. Always be careful. when people just blindly follow the pastor. These teachers knew how to make their destructive doctrines become popular. Verse two says, and many will follow their destructive ways because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. Now, we can't go through every verse in this chapter. I'll just take one more. Verse three certainly describes a lot of massively wealthy Christian teachers today. It says, by covetousness, they will exploit you with deceptive words. Now, they do this nowadays by promising health and wealth and prosperity and success if you invest in their ministry, right? Has to be their ministry. Large number of megachurch ministries today are led by self-serving, exploitive teachers who spout heresy after heresy. A lot of people, maybe people in this church, I don't know, love T.D. Jake's books. He is a gross heretic. He is not a Christian. He worships a different God than we worship. Many people don't realize he is a modalist. He is not a Trinitarian. The naivety of Christians is just astonishing to me. Rob Bell is an emerging church heretic. Greg Boyd is an open theist heretic who worships a different God. Don't tell me otherwise. It's a different God than we worship, and yet he's so popular amongst evangelicals. Joel Osteen, so many others fall into this category. And many of them don't seem to even be bothered by the fact they are doomed to judgment, and they deny there is a judgment. Many of them do. Their consciences are seared. They have failed to learn from the numerous judgments God has outlined in the Bible. They insist, our God is a God of love. He wouldn't even hurt a fly. Well, let me read some verses that show he hurts a whole lot more than flies. verses 3 and following, "'For a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber. For if God did not spare the angels who sinned but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment, and did not spare the ancient world but saved Noah out of one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood and the world of the ungodly, and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly, and delivered righteous law. It was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked, for that righteous man dwelling among them tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds. Then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment. I mean, there's so much in that passage we can't get into, but you do need to be nervous when pastors deny the doctrine of hell or deny that God is a God of judgment. Peter warns us to watch out. I actually had one pastor, pastor of an evangelical charismatic church, he told me that he didn't believe in the God of the Old Testament. I was just shocked. We argued till about three in the morning. And so I finally, I read to him from Revelation, some of the judgments, and I said, can you think of anything in the Old Testament that is as much vengeance as Revelation? He said, yeah, well, I have my doubts about the God of the New Testament too. And I said, where on earth do you get your conception of God? He said, God has revealed himself to me. It is a charismatic experience. This is where he's founding it. I told him he was a heretic headed toward hell, but anyway. It really, really frustrated me, but you see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place. Verses 10 through 17, we've got to rush. Go on to say that their character is self-destructive, but they just don't get it. They don't get it. And especially those who walk according to the flesh and the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries. Whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime, bear spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you. having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices and are accursed children. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness. But he was rebuked for his iniquity. A dumb donkey, speaking with a man's voice, restrained the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. Now, I'm not gonna get into that. When we get to Jude, we're gonna see a very similar laundry list, and I'll deal with those descriptions there. It's actually very encouraging, because even though it may seem like they're dominating for a while, they cannot deliver what they promise, and eventually people will realize they are wells without water. Several sermons could be preached on that section. Actually, Martin Selbritti, I don't know if I put it on Discord or maybe MeWe, but he wrote a fabulous article on just one phrase from that section I just read on reviling. You know, he wrote against reviling. Very convicting essay. but we need to hurry on. Next, Peter says that their claims are not consistent with Scripture, verses 18 through 22. For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption. For by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and 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 his own vomit, and a sow having washed to her wallowing in the mire." So he's not talking about losing salvation. In other words, he's not talking about a sheep becoming a sow. These were sows and dogs, were cleaned up to some degree, but they were still sows and dogs. They had never become true sheep. Now, just one comment. How many modern megachurch leaders have been caught with prostitutes or other forms of adultery or even homosexual encounters? It's astonishing. If I were to list them, it would take about five minutes to list all of the pastors in the last two decades that have been caught in gross sin. How many are materialists, prideful, self-centered, even deceptive? This whole chapter is an incredible laundry list of issues that I think we see in the modern church. and we won't have time to get into them in this overview, but they constitute the antithesis of true God-centered Christianity that Jesus and the apostles set forth. Okay, wow, we've got to chapter three. And he takes one of the numerous doctrines that these false teachers were promoting to show how they twist words. These false teachers were teaching that there would be no end to history and the promise of final judgment would not happen. Now, of course, that's debated nowadays too, isn't it? Is 2 Peter 3 talking about the end of history? Or as some say, is it talking about AD 70 when the old covenant ended? Full Preterists say it's AD 70. Now, they aren't the only ones. John Owen said it was AD 70 as well. He was flat out wrong. I have read this hundreds, over a hundred times. I shouldn't say hundreds, but over a hundred times. I just cannot see their exegesis. I've read the commentaries. I have studied and studied trying to give them charity, but let me explain why I think this chapter is talking about Christ's kingdom growing nonstop till the end of history when Christ will come back and usher in the final stage of the kingdom. Well, let me first of all explain why some think this is 80-70. They say that the Greek word for elements in verse 10, the elements will melt with a fervent heat, can be translated as elementary principles or presuppositions, which it can. That's true. It's not the only definition, but it can be translated that way. Now, I don't see how presuppositions can melt, but oh well. Let's assume they're correct. Why is it that they only apply the elementary principles to Judaism? Are those the only presuppositions that Jesus will replace? No. His goal in history is to take every man-centered thought captive, put every enemy under his feet, and even redeem the physical universe. So even if you took the word elements as presuppositions, that didn't happen in 1870. Non-crystal centric presuppositions continue to be propounded to this day, including the heresy of Talmudism. The reality is that the Greek word refers to any foundational elements, foundational elements of thought, foundational elements of physics. There will be nothing left of thought, works, or even the physical creation that will remain untouched by Christ's grace. Second, I fail to see how the holiness of Christians in verses 11 through 13 hastened the day of Jerusalem's fall. If it did, Jerusalem shouldn't have fallen because those were the days of backsliding, the days of the great apostasy. It was just a tiny remnant of people who were faithful to God. On the other hand, our faithful holiness and dominion does indeed move earth to its final goal of being filled with righteousness, as verse 13 promises. Our righteousness contributes to that goal. I don't see how it contributes to the goal of 8070. Third, I fail to see how 8070 brought in everything of verse 13. Look at verse 13. Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." Now that promise came from Isaiah. Okay? Promise in Isaiah actually started to be fulfilled with Christ when he was raised from the dead. That's the first of the new things that began to happen, but that's 8030, not 70. Advancements were made in AD 70, but not everything in those chapters was fulfilled in AD 70. Isaiah's passages promise the Christianization of the world, a world filled with righteousness, every nation submitting to God's laws, the end of all war, people living long lives, animals becoming more docile, God's shalom pervading the earth. And Isaiah prophesied that after that has happened, that's going to be followed by a judgment where all the reprobate will burn forever. Isaiah 66, verse 24. And then the new heavens and new earth will continue forever without any reprobate being in it. Isaiah 66, 22 through 24. That simply did not happen in AD 70. Yet that is the goal of history. Full knowledge of the Lord, full righteousness by His grace. Fourth, it is very arbitrary for full preterists to give a different definition to heavens and earth in verses 10 through 13 than they do in verses 4 through 8. Peter has already defined his terms, and he uses them consistently through this chapter. Verse 5 speaks of the heavens and earth made in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1. This is not Judaism or the Old Covenant, even though there are some full preterists who say Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. They say, no, that's the setting up of the Old Covenant. That's the setting up of the temple. And 2 Peter 3, yes, it's got the same language, but that's the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the Old Covenant. So there are some who say that. The problem is they are using the Gnostic hermeneutics of the apocalyptic Jewish writers. The Bible knows nothing of apocalyptic hermeneutics. And Genesis 1-1 is talking about a literal heavens and earth. Likewise, verse 6 here speaks of the earth perishing in Noah's flood. Which earth perished in Noah's flood? not the old covenant, it's the literal planet. Then verse seven refers to the same heavens and earth that he'd just been referring to saying, but the heavens and earth which are now preserved by the same word are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of godly men. So he's not talking about preserving the old covenant till 8070 or preserving Israel till 8070, he's talking about preserving the planet and universe until all sin and sinners are dealt with on the final day of history. So it's really not until all the non-elect are resurrected for judgment on the final day of history that this heavens and earth will face the fires of persecution. By the way, earth will not be annihilated. It'll stand forever. Instead, it'll be purified. Nothing in this universe is exempt from the redemption and restoration of Christ's atonement. But another proof has to do with the timing indicators. None of them point to 8070. They all point to the end of history. Verse eight says it'll take thousands of years, that it won't be soon. Verse nine reiterates it'll be a long delay and says it can't happen until the last elect person is saved. Last elect person was not saved in 8070. Then he reiterates this refining of the heavens and earth in verse 10. All history is aiming toward the reversal of every aspect of the curse of Adam's fall. This includes sins being progressively put away, verse 11. The world being filled with righteousness, verse 13. Heavens being refined by fire, verse 12. Christ's redemption cannot leave anything untouched. Now there are other proofs, but I think those should be sufficient to say Ken Gentry is absolutely right that this could not possibly be a reference to 80-70 destruction. It has to be to the end of history. And so in this chapter, Peter is presenting two eschatologies. There's a false eschatology that says the world has never changed, never will change. It's a pessimistic eschatology that robs people of hope. That's what Satan's always trying to do, rob people of hope. Then there's the eschatology of hope I just outlined. This eschatology of hope leaves no square inch of this universe outside of a God-centered and Christ-grounded purpose. And it makes sense that all of the universe is gonna be in there because God made a covenant in the Old Testament with what? He said he made a covenant with the moon, sun, stars, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the creeping things on the ground. Jeremiah 31, Hosea 218, Ezekiel 3425. So creation and new creation are the bookends of the same physical universe and to say otherwise is to reduce the gospel to a Gnostic escapism. Now let's go to the beginning of chapter 3 and see how Peter argues this. In verses one through two, Peter reminds them that his eschatology is based upon the scriptures that went before, namely the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles and prophets. He says, Beloved, I now write to you the second epistle, in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder, that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior. Where does full preterism go for their method of interpretation? Well, they claim they go to the scriptures, but they also claim you can't understand those scriptures unless you use the apocalyptic hermeneutics of the Jews. In our Revelation series, we saw those apocalyptic writings were written by Christ-hating Gnostic Jews. They do not supply our hermeneutics. Like Peter, we get our hermeneutics from the Bible from the Bible alone. In fact, That's one of the projects I hope to do in the next year or two is a series on hermeneutics and a textbook on hermeneutics where I just use the Bible. In other words, Old Testament prophets interpreting earlier writings, Jesus and the apostles interpreting earlier writings of scripture, they give us enough hermeneutical principles where we can interpret the rest of the scriptures just like they do without any need to import hermeneutical principles. For sure, we do not need to go to Talmudic apocalypticism. Now contrast this with the eschatology of the last-day Talmudists that Peter was writing against. They looked around them with newspaper exegesis, and because they didn't see any basis or ground for optimism, they denied that Christ would come or that history would end. Theological liberals have almost identical reasoning. Look at verses 3 through 4. Knowing this first, scoffers will come in the last day and days. Full preterists are correct that the last days were the days leading up to 8070. So I'll hand that to them. Walking according to their own lusts and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. So they looked all around them. All they could see is continuity and sameness. So they assume the future is going to be continuity and sameness. Well, that's a logical fallacy, and it's certainly not biblical. And this denial of judgment not only led to a denial of progress in history, it also led them to live for themselves. Verse three says that the reason for their denial of judgment is they wanted to live a life of immorality. I found it interesting that Aldous Huxley, the atheist, even though he frequently said that he was driven to deny a future judgment and deny God because the facts forced him to, He had a rare moment of honesty when he said this in his book, Ends and Means. He said, I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. consequently assumed that it had not, and was able, without any difficulty, to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning for this world is not concerned exclusively with the problem of pure physics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. And though these first century false teachers wouldn't probably have been that blunt, Peter said, hey, they were driven by exactly the same reason. Their immorality led them to a man-centered version of Christianity. It was far easier. Next, their pessimistic eschatology led them to deny any reversal of history. Verse 4, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." Now, obviously, it was a revisionist view of history, but Peter refutes it with seven arguments. In verses 5 through 6, he points out that even in the Old Testament, there were at least two examples of miraculous actions in history that were universally applied. For this they willfully forget, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and into water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." Now the word for forget is not the best translation. You can make the same point with that translation, but the literal rendering makes the meaning more pungent. Dictionary says it literally means to avoid, hide, or conceal the meaning of something. These apocalyptic teachers did the same thing that modern full preterists do. They make Genesis 1, Genesis 6 through 8 mean something different than what it seems to mean. Okay, they're hiding, they're concealing the true meaning. Now let me explain by looking at each of the two things that these teachers hid or obscured through their weird teaching. Verse 5 deals with the creation of all things in Genesis 1. One translation words it this way. But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. Now that's a summary of the first verses of Genesis 1. How do the false teachers obscure the meaning of Genesis 1? in exactly the same way that Timothy Martin, Geoffrey Vaughan, and a bunch of other full Preterists do by making everything in Genesis 1 apocalyptic symbolic language describing Israel and God's covenant with them. This heresy is spreading like wildfire through the full Preterist movement. It amounts to a total denial of the creation of the universe out of nothing. It's an unbiblical hermeneutics, and it receives Peter's rebuke here. The second thing that these false teachers obscured was the universal flood. Verse 6 says, So these false teachers had a hard time believing that. What? Even the high mountains were flooded? You've got to be kidding. They had a hard time believing it, so they treated it as symbolism. Very convenient. Well, this is exactly what Timothy Martin does in his book, Beyond Creation, how preterism refutes a global flood. It is a willful and deceitful hiding or obscuring of the obvious meaning of Genesis 6 through 8 by making it nothing but symbolism of doctrine. Now, here's the irony. These modern false teachers have gotten their hermeneutics from the ancient Jewish Gnostic false teachers, the same Gnostics that Peter refutes. And then they have the audacity to not only hide and obscure the meaning of Genesis 1, but to obscure the meaning of Peter, because they take it as being the same thing, which it is. They say that Genesis 1 deals with the beginning of the Old Covenant in its temple, 2 Peter 3 deals with the ending of the Old Covenant in its temple in AD 70. Now, I've got very, very little patience for such exegesis. Take the text at face value or stop pretending to believe the Bible. Now, not all full preterists buy into that nonsense in Genesis 1, but they still interpret 2 Peter 3 as the ending of the old covenant, destruction of Jerusalem by fire. Now, if that's the case, Peter was definitely not using his strongest argument. Just think of it this way. If, as I believe, Peter was trying to prove a universal and miraculous purifying of all things by fire, something that those Gnostics had a hard time believing, then it would make perfect sense to appeal to the two previous universal and miraculous events that God engaged in. But those are the two events these false teachers obscured with their so-called apocalyptic language. But if, as full Preterism says, Peter's simply trying to convince them that Jerusalem would be destroyed soon by the Romans, what bearing does the creation and the flood have to that argument? None whatsoever. It would be much easier to refer those Jews to the previous destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. So I think my interpretation fits Peter's flow of the argument much better. Peter's next argument for Christ not destroying the world yet is he's preserving it for something. He says in verse 7, by the same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. Again, full preterists say heaven and earth, that's symbolism for the temple. not the universe, but context is king. Peter has already defined his words in verses 5 and 6. And so in verse 7, Peter says the same physical world that was flooded and the same heavens and earth that God created in Genesis 1 is being preserved until nothing that was affected by the fall is left. All unrighteousness will be removed by removing all righteous people from it. That did not happen in AD 70. And the final goal will be reached before history ends and before the final stage of the kingdom endures for eternity. Anyway, in verse 8, he makes clear this is not going to happen soon. But beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. God's got lots of time on his hands. And unlike the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which the apostles consistently said was soon, near, about to happen, Here, he's conjuring up images of thousands of years. Why? Because it will be thousands of years later. If the war started the same year that 2 Peter was written, 8066, which it did, and if Jerusalem and Temple were destroyed within four years, it makes no sense to even introduce the concept of a thousand years. Keep in mind, these are contemporary false teachers that Peter is dealing with. And in verse 9, he explains the reason for being slow and delaying the fulfillment of his promise for thousands of years. It's not the same conception of slowness that the false teachers attribute to God. It says, The Lord is not slack or slow concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. The Lord is slow or longsuffering. The word for long-suffering means to wait through a long delay, makrthumeo. But he's not slow the way that these teachers thought. There's a reason for his slowness, that all should come to repentance. Who does the all refer to? Well, to the us of the previous class. Okay, to all of us, to all of the elect. He's not willing that any of them should perish. When the last elect person is saved, history will end. But the word makrthumeo implies a long delay. His next argument is given in verses 10 through 13. God's not just waiting for the elect to get saved. He's also waiting for the world to be filled with righteousness. Verse 13 gives the goal of history. Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Now, let's break that verse apart. The word look is prostakao, and it means to have expectation. We are expecting changes in the world. And though Christ did begin the process of making all things new with his resurrection, AD 70 did not fulfill the many promises of peace, prosperity, righteousness, or a converted world. History cannot end until God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven. But that history will end can be seen from verse 10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise and the elements will melt with fervent heat. Both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. To apply that to the temple just does not work. It's the same heavens that were created in Genesis 1 that will have something happen to them with a great heat and a great noise. Now, I don't like the translation pass away. The BDAG dictionary gives us one of the definitions of the Greek word translated pass away is to pass through or to go through. The world and the stars won't be ended. They will pass through the fire. They will still be there after the fire, but it'll be purified by fire, and that purification process will usher in the final stage of the kingdom, when no sinners will be in this new heavens and new earth that Christ, even now, is gradually making new. from AD 30 to the end of time. And why is fire needed? To remove every visible reminder of sin and the curse. There will be no dinosaur bones left. There will be no buried idols or occult symbols left. Christ's kingdom is destined to remove every vestige of sin. Now Peter's next argument is that since our faithfulness advances God's goal of a completely redeemed creation, we must be diligent in pursuing righteousness and advancing the salvation of the world just as Paul and the rest of the scriptures prophesied would happen. Starting to read at verse 14. without spot and blameless, and consider that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures." That was a ton of information in that paragraph. But the key point that Peter is hammering home is very parallel to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15. After promising that all enemies would be put under Christ's feet, that Jesus would not come back until the world was Christianized and everything was reconciled to Him, Paul ends 1 Corinthians 15 by pointing to the final resurrection and the last enemy being destroyed, and then he says this, therefore my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," here's the key phrase, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. An 80-70 interpretation simply does not do justice to the flow of Peter's argument. It falls into the same problems that the Jewish teachers of the first century had. Well, Peter concludes his epistle by arguing that in light of God's goal for planet earth, We should beware of false views that would divert us from it, verse 17. We should be steadfast ourselves, verse 17. We should grow in grace and knowledge so that all glory goes to God in history and in eternity, verse 18. And let me just read those last two verses. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. And I say amen and amen. Father, what a difficult book in light of all of the recent controversies that we have seen, and yet I pray that we would not only grasp it but appreciate that your grace will triumph over every obstacle that demons and men might throw in the way. We thank you that this world will indeed be filled with righteousness. We thank you that you are not just concerned with Judaism, you are concerned with the whole world, embracing, casting off their own ideas and presuppositions and embracing your word. And I pray that we ourselves and our part would fully embrace a God-centered Christianity. Help us to lay down our lives before you to acknowledge your sovereign grace is sufficient and more than sufficient to accomplish everything that you have prophesied. And may we ourselves experience more and more of your grace till the day we die. In Jesus' name I pray this, amen.