Desiring God Staff on 2 Peter 2:1

Much has been made of 2 Peter 2:1 -

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

- and whether or not it defends an indefinite atonement (or that it opposes the view of definite atonement). An article was posted on the issue of this verse at the Desiring God website on January 1, 2007 - "Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Effectual Atonement?" I find it helpful and challenging. My aim is to engage in edifying discussion over key texts, as it is my hope that in your reading of this article you will feel compelled to comment and converse. The first issue in the article seems to concern the context; the second issue stems from Grudem's cross reference between 2 Peter 2:1 and Exodus 2:1, that Peter is pointing his audience to the Exodus of Israel; the third issue is that of language - is "the Lord who bought them" referring to Jesus or to God the Father in reference to Deut. 32:6; the fourth issue arises out of the question of reality vs. appearance in relation to those who deny the Master.

Beyond this, however, I find something more compelling. If you hold that this text denies definite atonement, I would lay the burden of explanation upon you. What does this text really mean by the term "bought". Do you really think that what "bought" means in this text is that those who deny the Master, when they die, will be saved if they die in their denial? Of course not - I hope! If those who deny Christhave been bought by Christ, but they are not saved in the last day, what does "bought" mean? Do you think that what this text means is that those who were bought will be in heaven if they do not believe in Christ? Again, of course not! Then what does bought mean? It means that He made a sufficient payment for those who deny, but not an effectual payment for them - unless they turn and believe, in which case Christ effectually bought them - His atonement really paid for them. If you would say that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all but effecient towards those who believe in Him, then (being reformed) I have no problems with that interpretation - we agree! It is not what the proponents of the contrary position affirm that I have a problem with, but what they deny (and what I happen to find taught in Scripture). In other words, every one is stuck with a limited atonement unless you are a universalist (and completely unbiblical) - it just depends on how you limit it; either in number or actuality, scope or power, etc. Regardless, the real issue hangs not on the atonement but on election - how is the atonement applied or where does faith come from? What makes the difference between those who deny and those who believe? 2 Peter 2:1 in no way denies the effecting of the sacrifice of Christ, but concerns its sufficiency. It term bought here does not negate what the reformed view calls for - please offer your thoughts...