2 Peter 2_1 and Perseverance of the Saints

8/3/2014 2 Peter 2:1 and perseverance of the saints

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/2-peter-2-1-perseverance-saints-74445/ 1/7

Forum The Scriptures Exegetical Forum 2 Peter 2:1 and perseverance of the saints

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register

before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forumthat you want to visit from the selection below.

See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Exegetical Forum discuss 2 Peter 2:1 and perseverance of the saints in the The Scriptures forums; Alrightthis verse has been bugging me. I've read a few reformed commentaries on it but I'm still confused. I'veread the arguments about the ...

User Name Password Log in

Remember Me?

RegisterHelp

What's New? Articles Classifieds Blogs Arcade

Today's PostsNew Posts FAQ Calendar Forum Actions Quick Links Advanced Search

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Be the first of your friends to like this.Like

LinkBack Thread Tools Display

05-29-2012, 01:35 PM

Join Date:Posts:

May 201118

2 Peter 2:1 and perseverance of the saints

Alright this verse has been bugging me. I've read a few reformed commentaries on it butI'm still confused. I've read the arguments about the word for "Lord" being one that isnot used for Christ anywhere else and so is most likely referring to God the Father, andalso I see the clear connection with Deut 32 but it is still just is bugging me.

I know Peter is writing to Jews here, but he also he is clearly writing to believers ("tothose who have obtained a faith of equal standing to ours"), not just any Jews. But if Itake "denying the Lord that bought them" to mean denying God the Father who broughtthem out of Egypt, how would this denial be shown? (if it's a denial other than thedenial of Jesus Christ's blood in particular, though to deny Christ is to deny God theFather as well and vice versa)

Or if it is talking about Christ, is it just as simple as saying that they are not bought butclaim falsely that they are bought?

Speaking of Deuteronomy, I noticed a pretty significant difference in verse 5 (which isparalleled in 2 Peter 2:13) between the different translations:

ESV "They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because theyare blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation."KJV "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: theyare a perverse and crooked generation."NASB "They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because oftheir defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation."Young's "It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generationperverse and crooked!"

The ESV (along with others like NIV) seems to suggest some sort of "falling away" that

#1

Puritanboard Freshman

NoxNoctum

Forum



would line up with an Arminian interpretation of 2 Peter ("no longer his children" vs "nothis children"). But the other translations all actually fit more into the idea of the "visiblechurch" vs. the actual elect. Or that a "Jew" is he who is so inwardly.

Any thoughts would be helpful.

Last edited by NoxNoctum; 05-29-2012 at 05:30 PM. Reason: typo

LeightonRegular attender of First Presbyterian Church of AugustaUSA

05-29-2012, 01:46 PM

Join Date:Posts:

May 20111,396

Sorry that I don't have an answer for this one offhand, but I have to admit that attimes this can be a tough one to wrestle with. Even with the Reformed commentariesI've read, I have found some of the answers for this (and similar) verses to feel a littleflat in their response.

J. Dean, authorEPCFlint, Michigan

If your preaching of the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ does not provokethe charge from some of antinomianism, you're not preaching the gospel of the freegrace of God in Jesus Christ. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

#2

Puritanboard Junior

J. Dean

05-29-2012, 01:55 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Mar 20054,035

I hope you find this post helpful. I originally wrote it to answer the question of how theReformed understanding of the atonement and 2 Peter 2:1 can be reconciled but as I

#3

Puritanboard Postgraduate

Poimen



point out that discussion has implications for the doctrine of the perseverance of thesaints as well.

Rev. Daniel KokPastor in the St. Lawrence Presbytery of the RPCNALeduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not forhimself!"John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

05-29-2012, 02:14 PM

Join Date:Posts:

May 201118

Thanks for that post Poimen, but it seems that you're mostly just pointing out in thatarticle what it can't mean, which I totally agree with because scripture can't contradictitself, but I'm still left wondering what it *does* mean.

I also don't really like the idea of some kind of "lesser" redemption. I mean I'm not sure Iwould ever say that Judas was redeemed in any sense, but you could say that he"tasted of the heavenly gift" in a similar way that Saul (as in King Saul not Paul) didwhen the latter prophesied, since presumably Judas did everything the other disciplesdid since when Christ said that one would betray him they didn't assume it was him oranything like that.

I guess at the moment I lean towards it just meaning visible church vs actual churchbut I still kind of have to worm around it a bit to get there.

I also think it's clear that Peter is saying that these false teachers were predestined tothis ("their condemnation from long ago is not idle") in the same way that the son ofperdition was. (in other words clearly the elect can't be what he's talking about here)


#4


NoxNoctum

05-29-2012, 02:18 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Apr 20121,007

Here: A Puritan's Mind Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 Dr. Matthew McMahon

Trent

#5

Puritanboard Junior

arap



non-denominational (but Thoroughly reformed at heart) WCFColorado

1 member(s) found this post helpful.

05-29-2012, 02:49 PM

Join Date:Posts:

May 201118

Ya I wonder if that must be the explanation. They give the appearance of being boughtor claim to be bought or associate themselves with the people who are bought.

2 Peter 2:21 also is a bit troubling. How can an unbeliever "know the way ofrighteousness"? Unless it just means the same thing as having a "form of Godliness butdenying its power"


#6


NoxNoctum

Originally Posted by arap


05-29-2012, 03:24 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Mar 20054,035

"Mostly" yes, but I also note in point 5:

#7

Puritanboard Postgraduate

Poimen

Originally Posted by NoxNoctum

Thanks for that post Poimen, but it seems that you're mostly just pointing out in thatarticle what it can't mean, which I totally agree with because scripture can't contradictitself, but I'm still left wondering what it *does* mean.

I believe that vs. 20 provides the explanation of this verse: these false prophets escapedthe pollutions of the world for a time. They were professors of Jesus and members ofthe church. Thus they had knowledge of Christ (similar to Hebrews 6:4-6) but never had



Rev. Daniel KokPastor in the St. Lawrence Presbytery of the RPCNALeduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not forhimself!"John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

a saving relationship with Him. They went out from us but they were not of us 1 John2:19. Indeed, Jesus Himself declares that He never knew them in a redeeming way(Matthew 7:23).

05-29-2012, 03:39 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 20047,412

The issues aren't really any different from those found in Hebrews, and actually (giventhe term despotes, and other facts of 2Pet.), the language of Hebrews is arguablystronger.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenlygift, and have become partakers of the holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word ofGod and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again torepentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to anopen shame." Heb.6:4-6

This is a strong statement about the reality of what we on this side of heaven call"Apostasy." These are people who have come into such contact with blessed Spiritualthings, that it must be said of them that they have turned their backs on truths theycannot be said not to have known.

But, as we are bound to strive for harmony in our understanding, it is important that weaffirm the grounding essential of a sure and perfect election, and that none of those forwhom Christ died, and gave his Holy Spirit, and every other heavenly benefit, are ableto perish. And if that is so, and by the clarity of its teaching compels our first assent,then we are driven to apprehend the Apostasy texts according to 1Jn.2:19, "They wentout from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would havecontinued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are notof us."

That is, we are driven to a "qualified" understanding of what these people may be saidto have partaken of, or how such persons were "bought," because we cannot or maynot "qualify" the absolute nature of God's elective (and monergistic) and invincible workof salvation, even to the breaking down of even the subject's own resistance to hisgrace, until it is overcome, and in love he embraces his Savior and God--never to beparted evermore.

#8

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger

Contra_Mundum



Free online exegetical teaching? | The Reed-Kellogg system of sentence diagrams

Rev. Bruce G. BuchananChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI

Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the DestroyerActs 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12

When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:

Oh, that God the gift would give usTo see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements-- Suggestions? -- Sermons

2 member(s) found this post helpful.

05-29-2012, 03:51 PM

Join Date:Posts:

Feb 2010222

I think this was pretty helpful, and a better explanation than most of the others given,especially since it shows that the Arminian interpretation of the passage is flawed, asthe word "bought" signifies a completed (not hypothetical) purchase.

If anyone has any further thoughts on this article (or criticisms of this exegesis), itwould be very helpful to hear them.

Benjamin Davenport -- Seattle, WAMember, Lynnwood OPCStudent, Northwest Theological Seminary

#9


davenporter

Originally Posted by arap


Digg

del.icio.us

StumbleUpon

Bookmarks

You may not post newthreads

You may not post replies

You may not post

Posting Permissions

BB code is On

Smilies are On

[IMG] code is On

[VIDEO] code is On



---- PuritanBoard Contact Us The PuritanBoard Archive Top

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 4.2.2 Copyright 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright 2002-2012 PuritanBoard.com Designed and hosted by WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Ratings, Guides, and Advice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 3940 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Google attachments

You may not edit yourposts

HTML code is Off

Trackbacks are On

Pingbacks are On

Refbacks are On

Forum Rules

Documents

2 Peter 2_1 and Perseverance of the Saints