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. (2 Pet 2:1)

The argument goes like this: Peter here teaches that false teachers in the early church who face a “swift destruction” are clearly said to have been “bought” by Jesus Christ.  So clearly, even unbelieving false teachers were beneficiaries of the atonement, and therefore it wasn’t “limited.”

I’ve heard a number of responses to this argument, most of which are inadequate.  I even heard a nationally respected reformed pastor-theologian state that the word translated “bought” (agorazo) does not refer to the atonement because it’s never used elsewhere in Scripture to refer to Christ’s redemptive work.  While it’s true that agorazo is not a usual word used in the NT to describe what takes place in redemption, his claim was patently untrue (cf. 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23).

I think the answer is much simpler than that.  It’s clear that Peter is speaking of unconverted false teachers.  Notice some of his descriptions of them:

• They face a “swift destruction” (v. 1)
• The are “under punishment until the day of judgment” (v. 9)
• They were “born to be caught and destroyed” (v. 12)
• The are “accursed children” (v. 14)
• “For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” (v. 17)

So clearly, Peter is speaking about unconverted false teachers who will spend eternity in hell.  And I think it’s equally clear that Peter is using real redemption language in verse 1 to describe these same false teachers.  But that’s not all there is to it.  Interestingly, Peter does something similar at the end of the chapter when he describes them:

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Pet 2:20-21)

So not only does Peter use real redemption language in verse 1 to describe the false teachers, he also uses real salvation language in verses 20-21 to describe them.  My point is that 2 Peter 2 presents not just a difficulty for the doctrine of limited atonement, but also for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (a.k.a., eternal security).  If you want to argue from verse 1 that these false teachers had been truly purchased by Christ’s blood, thereby disproving particular redemption, then you must also concede that verses 20-21 teach that these false teachers at one time had experienced genuine salvation and had subsequently “lost” it.

So we have two options.

1. Concede with our Arminian brothers that salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ but ultimately hinges upon the will of the individual (thereby denying all 5 points of the Doctrines of Grace), or
2. Presuppose that Peter is not speaking here of the true, actual conversion of the false teachers, but of a false, apparent salvation that is ultimately demonstrated to be counterfeit (by their departure from sound doctrine).

Of course, I prefer the second option.  As in other NT passages (eg., Hebrews 6:4ff), Peter is dealing here with people who confess to be followers of Jesus Christ and who even at one time gave evidence of having known Jesus as Lord (v. 19), having been bought by him (v. 1), having known the way of righteousness (v. 20), and of having escaped the defilements of the world (v. 19), but who have since departed from the truth and who, therefore, demonstrate that they never were truly followers of Christ to begin with.  Their redemption by the “master who bought them” was apparent, not real, just like their salvation and righteousness were apparent, not real.

Jesus’ atonement for individual sinners cannot be separated from their salvation.  The atonement provides, secures and ensures the final salvation of its beneficiaries.

And as is usually the case with arguments against particular redemption, the one from 2 Peter 2, when followed to its logical conclusion, goes further than my 4-point-Calvinist friends are willing to go.