PDA

View Full Version : Who here believes 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation?



humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 03:29 AM
I want to point out a couple things that completely debunk this myth. I do not intend to leave the letters of Peter to prove this. I do not need to.

1. Peter is addressing the same people he wrote to in his first letter.

2. Since pt 1 is true based on 2 Pet 3.1, we know that both letters are addressed to born again believers (those who have received the same faith as he, God's elect).

3. Most importantly, I want to point to 2 Peter 1:8 -- For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Point 3 is the clear giveaway. It says the preceding qualities keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful. NOT keep you from being SAVED.

Furthermore, we must consider verse 9, which says; For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

What is this saying? It is saying that if you do not possess these qualities, you're not saved ... right? It's saying that if you lack these qualities, you're in danger of losing your salvation .. right?

Nope. It is saying the exact opposite! He says we are lacking these qualities because we have forgotten that we were cleansed already. So what is Peter trying to say? What he is saying is that we, as Christians, are capable of producing this fruit when our focus is on the right thing .. namely Christ. So what are we to do with this information? Continue to make our focus the One Thing it must be for us to continually live a life with those wonderful qualities. Oh the joy of the Cross! The freedom of the Cross!

For a more in-depth understanding of this passage in this light, read this article:

Notes on Our Ongoing Need of Redemption as Christians (http://www.monergism.com/ongoing.html)

^One of the better articles I've read in quite some time.^

theothersock
Jul 29th 2008, 04:18 AM
How do you interpret this then?


2 Peter 1 : 11
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 04:53 AM
How do you interpret this then?


2 Peter 1 : 11
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

No need to "interpret" it. That word makes the intent of the verse clear. It is clear that the context speaks of one who either forgets they have been cleansed from their sins, or one who remembers. Either way, they are clean.

Keep in mind ... the overarching message of the gospel is that Christ came to do what we could not. It is all of God. Hallelujah

th1bill
Jul 29th 2008, 12:51 PM
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

No need to "interpret" it. That word makes the intent of the verse clear. It is clear that the context speaks of one who either forgets they have been cleansed from their sins, or one who remembers. Either way, they are clean.

Keep in mind ... the overarching message of the gospel is that Christ came to do what we could not. It is all of God. Hallelujah

Great point and well written. What pains me the most is that folks of the opposite "opinion" are working off of just that, their opinion. If one will just not draw a single, or a part of verse out of context there could be no heresy. Folks just seem determined to ignore the truth that the entire Bible is written in one context.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 29th 2008, 04:16 PM
I want to point out a couple things that completely debunk this myth. I do not intend to leave the letters of Peter to prove this. I do not need to.

1. Peter is addressing the same people he wrote to in his first letter.

2. Since pt 1 is true based on 2 Pet 3.1, we know that both letters are addressed to born again believers (those who have received the same faith as he, God's elect).

3. Most importantly, I want to point to 2 Peter 1:8 -- For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Point 3 is the clear giveaway. It says the preceding qualities keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful. NOT keep you from being SAVED.

Furthermore, we must consider verse 9, which says; For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

What is this saying? It is saying that if you do not possess these qualities, you're not saved ... right? It's saying that if you lack these qualities, you're in danger of losing your salvation .. right?

Nope. It is saying the exact opposite! He says we are lacking these qualities because we have forgotten that we were cleansed already. So what is Peter trying to say? What he is saying is that we, as Christians, are capable of producing this fruit when our focus is on the right thing .. namely Christ. So what are we to do with this information? Continue to make our focus the One Thing it must be for us to continually live a life with those wonderful qualities. Oh the joy of the Cross! The freedom of the Cross!

For a more in-depth understanding of this passage in this light, read this article:

Notes on Our Ongoing Need of Redemption as Christians (http://www.monergism.com/ongoing.html)

^One of the better articles I've read in quite some time.^Well done - very well written! :thumbsup:

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 04:29 PM
ProjectPeter(Ken) this is your que to jump in.:lol:

I would love to put my thoughts in the mix but I am out of time for right now. This could be a good discussion:hmm:

I will add...

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Fall from where?????????

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 04:32 PM
Great point and well written. What pains me the most is that folks of the opposite "opinion" are working off of just that, their opinion. If one will just not draw a single, or a part of verse out of context there could be no heresy. Folks just seem determined to ignore the truth that the entire Bible is written in one context.


To the contrary, I think it is the "other" crowd that is inserting opinion.;)

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 04:58 PM
ProjectPeter(Ken) this is your que to jump in.:lol:I didn't think it would take this long, actually :lol:





Fall from where?????????Fall from effectiveness and fruitfulness, of course. For that is the exact point Peter makes just two verses before.

The concept that one can "fall from grace", even in its original context in Galatians, does not mean "lose salvation" ... that phrase as used by Paul means to forget the gospel of divine grace and "fall back" into a legalistic idea of salvation by works. I would daresay that anyone who believes NOSAS and specifically that this particular passage in 2 Peter speaks of a need to "work out your salvation" in the literal sense is falling FROM grace themselves, and falling INTO works.

Would you like to try addressing the points made in the OP? For if one cannot disagree with them, then the comments made by the following dissenters are contradictory to the context of the passage.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 05:11 PM
I didn't think it would take this long, actually :lol:




Fall from effectiveness and fruitfulness, of course. For that is the exact point Peter makes just two verses before.

The concept that one can "fall from grace", even in its original context in Galatians, does not mean "lose salvation" ... that phrase as used by Paul means to forget the gospel of divine grace and "fall back" into a legalistic idea of salvation by works. I would daresay that anyone who believes NOSAS and specifically that this particular passage in 2 Peter speaks of a need to "work out your salvation" in the literal sense is falling FROM grace themselves, and falling INTO works.

Would you like to try addressing the points made in the OP? For if one cannot disagree with them, then the comments made by the following dissenters are contradictory to the context of the passage.

Wasn't my comments in context of the topic...

"Who here believes 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation"...remember:hmm:

I believe my comments were within the scope of the topic.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 05:31 PM
Wasn't my comments in context of the topic...

"Who here believes 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation"...remember:hmm:

I believe my comments were within the scope of the topic.Fair enough :)
............. (<-- adding characters to make the minimum requirement of 15 ... come to think of it, the text explaining the added dots does that, too, doesn't it? hmm. now what?)

BrokenOne
Jul 29th 2008, 05:32 PM
ProjectPeter(Ken) this is your que to jump in.:lol:

I would love to put my thoughts in the mix but I am out of time for right now. This could be a good discussion:hmm:

I will add...

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Fall from where?????????


I looked up the word fall in strongs and it said "trip or sin". So maybe it is saying that if we do these things we will not sin. Just a thought. Great discussion though.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 05:56 PM
I looked up the word fall in strongs and it said "trip or sin". So maybe it is saying that if we do these things we will not sin. Just a thought. Great discussion though.Thank you :)

I didn't even think to look up the word itself. I was merely going by the overall context of the passage. That makes much more sense.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 06:40 PM
I looked up the word fall in strongs and it said "trip or sin". So maybe it is saying that if we do these things we will not sin. Just a thought. Great discussion though.

The definition of "if"...on the condition that, in the event that

And IF you fall into sin then you will not receive a rich welcome into the kingdom.

See the "For if you do these things" part just before "you will never fall" that makes this whole phrase a conditional statement...hence to receive a rich welcome, one would have to not fall. IF one fell then they would not receive a rich welcome...it is that simple.

So yes fall is "sin" and sin has been and always will be separation from God.

But the good news is...through repentance that sin can be erased;)

Partaker of Christ
Jul 29th 2008, 07:16 PM
The word 'fall' in 2 Peter 1:10 is [pipto]

Taken from Vines:

<B-1,Verb,4098,pipto>
"to fall," is used (a) of descent, to "fall" down from, e.g., Mat_10:29; Mat_13:4; (b) of a lot, Act_1:26; (c) of "falling" under judgment, Jam_5:12 (cp. Rev_18:2, RV); (d) of persons in the act of prostration, to prostrate oneself, e.g., Mat_17:6; Joh_18:6; Rev_1:17; in homage and workship, e.g., Mat_2:11; Mar_5:22; Rev_5:14; Rev_19:4; (e) of things, "falling" into ruin, or failing, e.g., Mat_7:25; Luk_16:17, RV, "fall," for AV, "fail;" Heb_11:30; (f) of "falling" in judgement upon persons, as of the sun's heat, Rev_7:16, RV, "strike," AV, "light;" of a mist and darkness, Act_13:11 (some mss. have epipipto); (g) of persons, in "falling" morally or spiritually, Rom_14:4; 1Co_10:8, 1Co_10:12; Rev_2:5

How some folk can take the word 'fall' or 'fallen', and get it to mean 'severed from Christ Jesus', is nothing short of baffling.

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2008, 07:28 PM
The definition of "if"...on the condition that, in the event that

And IF you fall into sin then you will not receive a rich welcome into the kingdom.

See the "For if you do these things" part just before "you will never fall" that makes this whole phrase a conditional statement...hence to receive a rich welcome, one would have to not fall. IF one fell then they would not receive a rich welcome...it is that simple.

So yes fall is "sin" and sin has been and always will be separation from God.

But the good news is...through repentance that sin can be erased;)

Yep!

Repent (escape the worldly corruption), believe through faith then work through your salvation by the steps laid out. If we possess these qualities and are adding to them (striving), meaning to persevere, we have purpose and fruit.

If we are lacking, not striving or possessing, we are blind, short sighted (lost sight of what is eternal, worldly focused), and have laid aside the sacrafice of the Son of God that had made us clean. Without the sacrafice, there is no purifucation from sin. Should we find ourselves in this camp - we need to go back to what we are lacking in - get back on the horse where we fell off - and stay on the good path.

If we don't, we become lacking all the more, having nothing, seeing nothing and focused not on Christ but the world, not covered by the sacrafice for purification of sin.

If we do - we have an abudance because of our faith.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 07:32 PM
But the good news is...through repentance that sin can be erased;)This is true. And the exact point of the linked article in the OP.

However, the clear context is that salvation is not being "threatened" here. What is being threatened is effectiveness and fruitfulness in the life of the Christian. In the life of GOD'S ELECT.

And at the risk of leaving Peter for one short moment, Jesus Himself said of all the Father had given Him (the ELECT), He would not lose one. Hallelujah

Partaker of Christ
Jul 29th 2008, 07:32 PM
The definition of "if"...on the condition that, in the event that

And IF you fall into sin then you will not receive a rich welcome into the kingdom.

See the "For if you do these things" part just before "you will never fall" that makes this whole phrase a conditional statement...hence to receive a rich welcome, one would have to not fall. IF one fell then they would not receive a rich welcome...it is that simple.

So yes fall is "sin" and sin has been and always will be separation from God.

But the good news is...through repentance that sin can be erased;)

So 'if' (as you erroneously believe) a Christian has been seperated from God, (severed from Christ) he would have to be born again (again). That involves being crucified with Christ, perhaps several times.
That is crucifying.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 07:36 PM
If we are lacking, not striving or possessing, we are blind, short sighted (lost sight of what is eternal, worldly focused), and have laid aside the sacrafice of the Son of God that had made us clean.That is not what it says. It says if we are lacking we have forgotten that we were cleansed. It doesn't say we have laid aside anything.

You're thinking of Hebrews, I believe, where the author explains that any who learn of the grace of Christ and continue to live a legalistic lifestyle of obeying the commandments to appease God have trampled upon the blood of Christ and have crucified Him anew.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 08:43 PM
So 'if' (as you erroneously believe) a Christian has been seperated from God, (severed from Christ) he would have to be born again (again). That involves being crucified with Christ, perhaps several times.
That is crucifying.

erroneously...big word! Does that mean that I'm in error or wrong???

no...that is backsliding and repenting

The passage in 2 Peter tells us we were purged from our past (old) sins not our future or present sins.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 08:45 PM
This is true. And the exact point of the linked article in the OP.

However, the clear context is that salvation is not being "threatened" here. What is being threatened is effectiveness and fruitfulness in the life of the Christian. In the life of GOD'S ELECT.

And at the risk of leaving Peter for one short moment, Jesus Himself said of all the Father had given Him (the ELECT), He would not lose one. Hallelujah

And what happens to the tree that doesn't bare good fruit???


It is cut down cast into the fire and burned for it is of no benefit.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 08:53 PM
That is not what it says. It says if we are lacking we have forgotten that we were cleansed. It doesn't say we have laid aside anything.

You're thinking of Hebrews, I believe, where the author explains that any who learn of the grace of Christ and continue to live a legalistic lifestyle of obeying the commandments to appease God have trampled upon the blood of Christ and have crucified Him anew.

Actually it is in the very same book we are not suppose to be leaving...2 Peter.

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Escaped from what?? The corruption of the world.

How? By knowing our Lord...We can both agree this is a TRUE knowledge since a FALSE knowledge would not let them be able to escape the world.

Entangled again in what?? The corruption of the world

It says that it is better for them NOT to know righteousness than to KNOW it and turn their backs on it...

Where are those who don't know the way of righteousness going??? Hell maybe???

Peter tells us that it will be worse than that for those who turn back to the world.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 09:05 PM
This is true. And the exact point of the linked article in the OP.

However, the clear context is that salvation is not being "threatened" here. What is being threatened is effectiveness and fruitfulness in the life of the Christian. In the life of GOD'S ELECT.

And at the risk of leaving Peter for one short moment, Jesus Himself said of all the Father had given Him (the ELECT), He would not lose one. Hallelujah

I was counting the minutes before someone started quoting the Gospel of John...

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 09:20 PM
The word 'fall' in 2 Peter 1:10 is [pipto]

Taken from Vines:

<B-1,Verb,4098,pipto>
"to fall," is used (a) of descent, to "fall" down from, e.g., Mat_10:29; Mat_13:4; (b) of a lot, Act_1:26; (c) of "falling" under judgment, Jam_5:12 (cp. Rev_18:2, RV); (d) of persons in the act of prostration, to prostrate oneself, e.g., Mat_17:6; Joh_18:6; Rev_1:17; in homage and workship, e.g., Mat_2:11; Mar_5:22; Rev_5:14; Rev_19:4; (e) of things, "falling" into ruin, or failing, e.g., Mat_7:25; Luk_16:17, RV, "fall," for AV, "fail;" Heb_11:30; (f) of "falling" in judgement upon persons, as of the sun's heat, Rev_7:16, RV, "strike," AV, "light;" of a mist and darkness, Act_13:11 (some mss. have epipipto); (g) of persons, in "falling" morally or spiritually, Rom_14:4; 1Co_10:8, 1Co_10:12; Rev_2:5

How some folk can take the word 'fall' or 'fallen', and get it to mean 'severed from Christ Jesus', is nothing short of baffling.

Well, my Strong's Lexicon says this...

4417 πταίω [ptaio /ptah·yo/] Five occurrences; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1728493#_ftn5) translates as “offend” three times, “stumble” once, and “fall” once. 1 to cause one to stumble or fall. 2 to stumble. 2a to err, make a mistake, to sin. 2b to fall into misery, become wretched.


And the Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek...

4417. πταίω ptaiō, ptah´-yo; a form of 4098; to trip, to err, sin, fail (of salvation):— fall, offend, stumble.
[/URL]
So we are not too far off but you can see that it can mean to err...to sin...to become wretched.

Fall from where??? From fruitfulness (as humbled stated earlier)

Fruitfulness of what??? The knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 8)



[URL="http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1728493#_ftn6"] (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1728493#_ftn3)So if we fall "ptaio" from our knowledge of Christ are we not back where we began??? In the unknowing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where do those who do not know our Lord Jesus Christ end up?:hmm:

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2008, 09:28 PM
That is not what it says. It says if we are lacking we have forgotten that we were cleansed. It doesn't say we have laid aside anything.

You're thinking of Hebrews, I believe, where the author explains that any who learn of the grace of Christ and continue to live a legalistic lifestyle of obeying the commandments to appease God have trampled upon the blood of Christ and have crucified Him anew.

Yes, we have forgotten who we are in Christ and chosen to return to the ways that are not of Him, the ways of the world. We need to build up our faith through the Spirit, and we have no issue with backsliding or anything. If we don't - it's as 2 Peter 1 states. Add these things to each other, and there are no worries. Strive. We need to focus on what we should do, and greatly minimize the consequences of v. 10-11.

As to the legalism - that also is not of Christ and the grace He bestows on us.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 10:28 PM
Actually it is in the very same book we are not suppose to be leaving...2 Peter.

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Escaped from what?? The corruption of the world.

How? By knowing our Lord...We can both agree this is a TRUE knowledge since a FALSE knowledge would not let them be able to escape the world.

Entangled again in what?? The corruption of the world

It says that it is better for them NOT to know righteousness than to KNOW it and turn their backs on it...

Where are those who don't know the way of righteousness going??? Hell maybe???

Peter tells us that it will be worse than that for those who turn back to the world.I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that they had a true knowledge. For the verse that states "by that which we are overcome, to that we are enslaved" indicates that they never were. If one is overcome by the world, and in this context, false doctrine, which is Peter's point, they are enslaved by the devil (the "liar from the beginning"). For them to be at one time a slave of Christ, indwelt by His Spirit to then be overcome by the devil would mean the strongman has defeated the One whom was dwelling within them. Impossible.

The thought that comes to mind is the parable of the sower. Some seed fell among thorns and thistles ... they had heard the Word. But were overcome by their sinful desires, right? They must have been enslaved to their sin! They never were set free. For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

All of Scripture in context sheds lights on these issues. And fwiw, I had intended for the OP to remain in Peter ... not the entire thread. We all know conversations will stray around and around as the topic flows.

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 10:29 PM
Well, my Strong's Lexicon says this...

4417πταίω [ptaio /ptah·yo/] Five occurrences; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1728493#_ftn5) translates as “offend” three times, “stumble” once, and “fall” once. 1 to cause one to stumble or fall. 2 to stumble. 2a to err, make a mistake, to sin. 2b to fall into misery, become wretched.


And the Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek...


4417. πταίω ptaiō, ptah´-yo; a form of 4098; to trip, to err, sin, fail (of salvation):— fall, offend, stumble.

So we are not too far off but you can see that it can mean to err...to sin...to become wretched.

Fall from where??? From fruitfulness (as humbled stated earlier)

Fruitfulness of what??? The knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 8)



So if we fall "ptaio" from our knowledge of Christ are we not back where we began??? In the unknowing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where do those who do not know our Lord Jesus Christ end up?:hmm:
How are we saved/justified? (check one)

__ knowledge

__ faith

__ works

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 10:30 PM
I was counting the minutes before someone started quoting the Gospel of John...
Yes, John indeed is the valiant defender of the doctrines of Grace :lol:

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 10:32 PM
Actually it is in the very same book we are not suppose to be leaving...2 Peter.

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred By the way ... I was thinking of a different verse that is in fact in Hebrews ... but I'm afraid I dont' have the luxury of scanning the Scriptures right now. Someone may know of that verse that speaks of trampling the Son and crucifying Him again ... a little help?

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2008, 11:08 PM
Hebrews 6



4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 11:14 PM
I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that they had a true knowledge. For the verse that states "by that which we are overcome, to that we are enslaved" indicates that they never were. If one is overcome by the world, and in this context, false doctrine, which is Peter's point, they are enslaved by the devil (the "liar from the beginning"). For them to be at one time a slave of Christ, indwelt by His Spirit to then be overcome by the devil would mean the strongman has defeated the One whom was dwelling within them. Impossible.

The thought that comes to mind is the parable of the sower. Some seed fell among thorns and thistles ... they had heard the Word. But were overcome by their sinful desires, right? They must have been enslaved to their sin! They never were set free. For if the Son sets you free ... you are free indeed.

All of Scripture in context sheds lights on these issues. And fwiw, I had intended for the OP to remain in Peter ... not the entire thread. We all know conversations will stray around and around as the topic flows.

Then Peter is lying when he says that they have "escaped". False knowledge would not have freed them by no means. I'm sure Peter would have known this and that is why it is only a TRUE knowledge of our Lord that anyone has ever escaped the corruption of the world.

Do you agree?? Even you should be able to agree that a FALSE knowledge would not have allowed them to escape. Then either it was a TRUE knowledge or Peter is wrong...

And I'm sure we will get around...again to the parable of the sower. Right after we discuss the prodigal son. All OSAS topics usually follow a certain pattern...

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 11:17 PM
How are we saved/justified? (check one)

__ knowledge

__ faith

__ works

AHHH!!! The question with a question...

Answer mine and I'll answer yours:P

humbled
Jul 29th 2008, 11:18 PM
Then Peter is lying when he says that they have "escaped". False knowledge would not have freed them by no means. I'm sure Peter would have known this and that is why it is only a TRUE knowledge of our Lord that anyone has ever escaped the corruption of the world.

Do you agree?? Even you should be able to agree that a FALSE knowledge would not have allowed them to escape. Then either it was a TRUE knowledge or Peter is wrong...

And I'm sure we will get around...again to the parable of the sower. Right after we discuss the prodigal son. All OSAS topics usually follow a certain pattern...1. I'm not OSAS.

B. Have a nice day.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 11:22 PM
1. I'm not OSAS.

B. Have a nice day.

Sorry...all eternal security topics follow a certain pattern.;)

You are not leaving are you???? We are just getting started...

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 11:23 PM
1. I'm not OSAS.

B. Have a nice day.

I'm glad you are not OSAS...neither am I:lol::lol::lol:

Partaker of Christ
Jul 29th 2008, 11:24 PM
erroneously...big word! Does that mean that I'm in error or wrong???

no...that is backsliding and repenting

The passage in 2 Peter tells us we were purged from our past (old) sins not our future or present sins.

So if our future or present sins are not paid for, then they can be no forgiveness of sin (present or future)

'without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin'

So, do you expect that Christ will still yet shed more of His blood, for the confessed sins He forgives 'present and future'?
Will it be our own blood, or will we go back to sacrificing animals for the present and future sins?

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 29th 2008, 11:43 PM
So if our future or present sins are not paid for, then they can be no forgiveness of sin (present or future)

'without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin'

So, do you expect that Christ will still yet shed more of His blood, for the confessed sins He forgives 'present and future'?
Will it be our own blood, or will we go back to sacrificing animals for the present and future sins?

You confuse forgiveness of sin with paying the price of sin...

Jesus paid the price for ALL sin (past, present, future)...even for those who will go to hell. That price was paid 2000 years ago. If we were to take that position to the extreme then EVERYONE will go to Heaven. We both know that is not the case. But we were not forgiven of our sins 2000 years ago. You and I didn't receive forgiveness until we confessed our sins and those sins only included every sin you and I commited up to that moment...PAST/OLD sins. Hence the reason Peter chose to use the word "palai"


3819πάλαι [palai /pal·ahee/] Six occurrences; AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1728804#_ftn5) translates as “long ago” once, “any while” once, “a great while ago” once, “old” once, “in time past” once, and “of old” once. 1 of old, former. 2 long ago.

cwb
Jul 30th 2008, 06:19 AM
How are we saved/justified? (check one)

__ knowledge

__ faith

__ works

How about none of the above. You left out "grace" in your options.

humbled
Jul 30th 2008, 12:29 PM
How about none of the above. You left out "grace" in your options.What a total brain eclipse :o You're right!

I knew something was wrong, which is why I added /justified to the mix (we are justified by faith).

Thank you for the correction, cwb

BroRog
Jul 30th 2008, 02:33 PM
For the record, I am weighing in on the side of those who believe that 1Peter 1:5-11 is all about salvation.

humbled
Jul 30th 2008, 03:09 PM
For the record, I am weighing in on the side of those who believe that 1Peter 1:5-11 is all about salvation.
So I was pondering this on the way to work this morning ...

let's say for argument's sake that this is speaking about losing your salvation. Where is the "but don't worry, God will again forgive you if you repent"? You see, when John speaks about it in 1 John, he comforts those he is addressing with the encouragement of the gospel.

Peter, on the other hand, moves ahead simply saying "I say this by way of reminder ..." right?

Does Peter not have "the gift of encouragement" or something?

Why does Peter, the Apostle, neglect the gospel in this warning?

Something to consider, I suppose

Steps
Jul 30th 2008, 03:26 PM
There is something I don't quite undertstand.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept it that He who he Son makes free is free INDEED?

Steps
Jul 30th 2008, 03:37 PM
To the question that this thread asks,

Those verses have nothing to do with losing your salvation.

By the way, why, oh why, would anyone give his life to Christ just for the sake of it. If we understood the glory that follows the newness of life in Christ Jesus no Christian will make room in his life to live an ineffective christian life which is what those verses are talking about.

It is a miserable thing even to give your life to Christ just to avoid hell. Boring! It is THE LIFE to live

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 04:27 PM
So I was pondering this on the way to work this morning ...

let's say for argument's sake that this is speaking about losing your salvation. Where is the "but don't worry, God will again forgive you if you repent"? You see, when John speaks about it in 1 John, he comforts those he is addressing with the encouragement of the gospel.

Peter, on the other hand, moves ahead simply saying "I say this by way of reminder ..." right?

Does Peter not have "the gift of encouragement" or something?

Why does Peter, the Apostle, neglect the gospel in this warning?

Something to consider, I suppose

12So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Are you saying you don't see the encouragement in this passage??? Really?

He was not preaching at them because they were unfruitful or barren in the knowledge of Christ...look at verse 12. However he was telling them to be careful and not fall. That is why he uses the words like remember...refresh...remind. They were firmly established in it. In other words he was "preaching to the choir".

humbled
Jul 30th 2008, 05:49 PM
12So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Are you saying you don't see the encouragement in this passage??? Really?

He was not preaching at them because they were unfruitful or barren in the knowledge of Christ...look at verse 12. However he was telling them to be careful and not fall. That is why he uses the words like remember...refresh...remind. They were firmly established in it. In other words he was "preaching to the choir".And John was not?

Where is the gospel in 2 Peter?

humbled
Jul 30th 2008, 05:56 PM
AHHH!!! The question with a question...

Answer mine and I'll answer yours:P
What question? Where do those who don't know Christ go?

They don't GO anywhere. They are CAST into the lake of fire.

The point of my post is that you seem to think that it is knowledge that SAVES us. It is not knowledge that saves. It is knowledge that makes us fruitful, which is the entire point of 2Pet1.

:OFFT:

The original point of this post was to discover if 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation. I have yet to see anyone use the text to support this opinion. I've seen speculation and out of context comments, but to take the whole chapter into consideration, we KNOW that this chapter is speaking of fruitfulness and effectiveness. Nowhere does the Apostle mention salvation. Nowhere does he mention judgment or hell. Nowhere does he present the gospel.

He does mention judgment in chapter 2, but that is a different pericope altogether.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 06:40 PM
Humbled,
Some of my questions...

I will add...

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Fall from where?????????

Which you did answer with "fruitfulness" and my next question was...


And what happens to the tree that doesn't bare good fruit???

It is cut down cast into the fire and burned for it is of no benefit.

Which you didn't answer...using your logic that it is speaking of losing their fruitfulness would make the about question logical.


Actually it is in the very same book we are not suppose to be leaving...2 Peter.

20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Escaped from what?? The corruption of the world.

How? By knowing our Lord...We can both agree this is a TRUE knowledge since a FALSE knowledge would not let them be able to escape the world.

Entangled again in what?? The corruption of the world

It says that it is better for them NOT to know righteousness than to KNOW it and turn their backs on it...

Where are those who don't know the way of righteousness going??? Hell maybe???

Peter tells us that it will be worse than that for those who turn back to the world.

My next set of questions...I have given my answers. I would love to see yours on the above passage.



Fall from where??? From fruitfulness (as humbled stated earlier)

Fruitfulness of what??? The knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 8)

So if we fall "ptaio" from our knowledge of Christ are we not back where we began??? In the unknowing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where do those who do not know our Lord Jesus Christ end up?:hmm:

And this was to continue the conversation about the loss of fruitfulness...


Then Peter is lying when he says that they have "escaped". False knowledge would not have freed them by no means. I'm sure Peter would have known this and that is why it is only a TRUE knowledge of our Lord that anyone has ever escaped the corruption of the world.

Do you agree?? Even you should be able to agree that a FALSE knowledge would not have allowed them to escape. Then either it was a TRUE knowledge or Peter is wrong...

And I'm sure we will get around...again to the parable of the sower. Right after we discuss the prodigal son. All OSAS topics usually follow a certain pattern...

And your thoughts...agree or disagree

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 06:45 PM
And John was not?

Where is the gospel in 2 Peter?

Verse 16-18...I seem to remember this account of Christ in the Gospels:hmm: The Mount of Transfiguration I believe


16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

This sounds like he was saying that Jesus was the Son of God...that sounds gospelish...don't you think?

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 06:58 PM
What question? Where do those who don't know Christ go?

They don't GO anywhere. They are CAST into the lake of fire.

The point of my post is that you seem to think that it is knowledge that SAVES us. It is not knowledge that saves. It is knowledge that makes us fruitful, which is the entire point of 2Pet1.

:OFFT:

The original point of this post was to discover if 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation. I have yet to see anyone use the text to support this opinion. I've seen speculation and out of context comments, but to take the whole chapter into consideration, we KNOW that this chapter is speaking of fruitfulness and effectiveness. Nowhere does the Apostle mention salvation. Nowhere does he mention judgment or hell. Nowhere does he present the gospel.

He does mention judgment in chapter 2, but that is a different pericope altogether.

No...knowledge doesn't save us. But the context shows that Peter spoke of a personal relationship (knowledge) of our Lord. To lose that fruitfulness of knowledge of our Lord would put that person back into a state of unfruitfulness which means that they have forgotten the knowledge of our Lord and what He did for them.

The scripture reference of your first post shows us that there IS MORE to our walk as Christians than faith. Faith cranks the motor and we must add to our faith if we are to be fruitful and thriving in our knowledge of our Lord. If we don't then we will be unfruitful and barren in that relationship (knowledge)

humbled
Jul 30th 2008, 07:47 PM
No...knowledge doesn't save us. But the context shows that Peter spoke of a personal relationship (knowledge) of our Lord. To lose that fruitfulness of knowledge of our Lord would put that person back into a state of unfruitfulness which means that they have forgotten the knowledge of our Lord and what He did for them.

The scripture reference of your first post shows us that there IS MORE to our walk as Christians than faith. Faith cranks the motor and we must add to our faith if we are to be fruitful and thriving in our knowledge of our Lord. If we don't then we will be unfruitful and barren in that relationship (knowledge)
So your incorrectly associating a "personal relationship" with knowledge.

I knew we'd reach the source of the problem eventually. How did you come to that conclusion? And where do you get the notion that we must have a "personal relationship" with Christ? The FISH? lol What we must have is SOUND DOCTRINE. Otherwise we might have a "warm fuzzy relationship" with a devil and never even know it.

I am convinced that knowledge (epignosis) means exactly that -- knowledge. It is a knowledge of WHO Christ is and WHAT he has done.

Epignosis:
1) precise and correct knowledge
a) used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine

So in this context, what happens is we FORGET what we knew about Christ and what He has done for us, which leads to actions. Thoughts > behavior > actions. That is the process. Which is why Peter is speaking about knowledge. He's not speaking about a connection or relationship. he's speaking specifically about our perception of our VERY REAL condition.

Do you think Christ will lose some of His Elect? What does Peter mean when he addresses these people "God's elect" in 1Peter and "those who have a like faith as us" in 2 Peter?

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 08:23 PM
So your incorrectly associating a "personal relationship" with knowledge.

I knew we'd reach the source of the problem eventually. How did you come to that conclusion? And where do you get the notion that we must have a "personal relationship" with Christ? The FISH? lol What we must have is SOUND DOCTRINE. Otherwise we might have a "warm fuzzy relationship" with a devil and never even know it.

I am convinced that knowledge (epignosis) means exactly that -- knowledge. It is a knowledge of WHO Christ is and WHAT he has done.

Epignosis:
1) precise and correct knowledge
a) used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine

So in this context, what happens is we FORGET what we knew about Christ and what He has done for us, which leads to actions. Thoughts > behavior > actions. That is the process. Which is why Peter is speaking about knowledge. He's not speaking about a connection or relationship. he's speaking specifically about our perception of our VERY REAL condition.

Do you think Christ will lose some of His Elect? What does Peter mean when he addresses these people "God's elect" in 1Peter and "those who have a like faith as us" in 2 Peter?

Let's put it this way...

1. There are many people who have "knowledge" of who Jesus Christ is but they haven't accepted Him as Lord...this is a superficial, surface knowledge.

2. Then there are those of us who have accepted Him as Lord and have a "knowledge" of Him...this is a deep personal relationship, a TRUE full knowledge.

Someone who falls into category number one would not have a "epignosis" of Christ but the one in category number two would. The person in category number two is the only one who CAN bare good fruit. Peter tells us to add to our faith so that we will never become barren or unfruitful in our "full knowledge and discernment" (epignosis) of our Lord.

Now with that being said...If one were to be actively fruitful (opposite of unfruitful) and thriving (opposite of barren) in their full knowledge or "epignosis" (not a partial superficial knowledge) and then fall thus becoming barren and unfruitful in that "epignosis" then what would happen to that person (one might say branch or tree) that stops producing good fruit?

Doesn't that "branch" wither and is then gathered up and cast into the fire and they are burned??? I've give you a hint...it's in John.

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 30th 2008, 08:44 PM
Do you think Christ will lose some of His Elect? What does Peter mean when he addresses these people "God's elect" in 1Peter and "those who have a like faith as us" in 2 Peter?

1 Timothy 2:3-5 (King James Version)
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


The Bible tells us that God wants ALL men to be saved...not God wants only the elect to be saved. So that tells us either one of two things...
1. God doesn't get what he wants because we know that ALL men are not saved

OR...

2. God has a plan so that ALL men CAN be saved but not ALL men will be saved

WHICH ONE DO YOU SAY IS TRUE?????

To keep us in 2 Peter...
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Unfortunately, Peter tells us that one day it will be too late to repent...verse 10. That seems to be the same message that that John fellow wrote to the churches in Revelation:hmm: It is amazing how the Bible flows!

humbled
Jul 31st 2008, 01:18 AM
1 Timothy 2:3-5 (King James Version)
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


The Bible tells us that God wants ALL men to be saved...not God wants only the elect to be saved. So that tells us either one of two things...
1. God doesn't get what he wants because we know that ALL men are not saved

OR...

2. God has a plan so that ALL men CAN be saved but not ALL men will be saved

WHICH ONE DO YOU SAY IS TRUE?????

To keep us in 2 Peter...
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Unfortunately, Peter tells us that one day it will be too late to repent...verse 10. That seems to be the same message that that John fellow wrote to the churches in Revelation:hmm: It is amazing how the Bible flows!You dodged the question. I'm not speaking on unlimited/limited atonement. I'm asking what Peter meant when he addressed the recipients of his letters, for there is clearly a group that is called "God's Elect". I believe these to be those who are given to the Son by the Father.

Take two:

Do you think Christ will lose some of His Elect? What does Peter mean when he addresses these people "God's elect" in 1Peter and "those who have a like faith as us" in 2 Peter?

(for the record, I believe your options are not exhaustive -- there are others, but I desire to remain focused and not rabbit trail any more than we already have)

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:18 AM
JOHN! How are you man? Long time no see and good to see you again! The younguns making you old yet? :lol:

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:22 AM
I want to point out a couple things that completely debunk this myth. I do not intend to leave the letters of Peter to prove this. I do not need to.

1. Peter is addressing the same people he wrote to in his first letter.

2. Since pt 1 is true based on 2 Pet 3.1, we know that both letters are addressed to born again believers (those who have received the same faith as he, God's elect).

3. Most importantly, I want to point to 2 Peter 1:8 -- For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Point 3 is the clear giveaway. It says the preceding qualities keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful. NOT keep you from being SAVED.

Furthermore, we must consider verse 9, which says; For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

What is this saying? It is saying that if you do not possess these qualities, you're not saved ... right? It's saying that if you lack these qualities, you're in danger of losing your salvation .. right?

Nope. It is saying the exact opposite! He says we are lacking these qualities because we have forgotten that we were cleansed already. So what is Peter trying to say? What he is saying is that we, as Christians, are capable of producing this fruit when our focus is on the right thing .. namely Christ. So what are we to do with this information? Continue to make our focus the One Thing it must be for us to continually live a life with those wonderful qualities. Oh the joy of the Cross! The freedom of the Cross!

For a more in-depth understanding of this passage in this light, read this article:

Notes on Our Ongoing Need of Redemption as Christians (http://www.monergism.com/ongoing.html)

^One of the better articles I've read in quite some time.^
Now... I don't think that is what it is talking about at all although it can be tied into that to a degree anyway. It is speaking of doing those things so you want stumble and it makes your call and election (interesting he chose both) secure. ;) Now... if that is what makes it sure... what happens if you do not excel in those things? Add to that... what happens to the tree that bears no fruit? Isn't it cut down? ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:26 AM
I didn't think it would take this long, actually :lol:

HA! I am actually pretty busy the next few days. We are fixing to move to Tennessee. Going to work with a ministry up there... believe it or not... a Baptist one. ;)

I saw it but just didn't have much time today to get into it yet! :D

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:29 AM
I would daresay that anyone who believes NOSAS and specifically that this particular passage in 2 Peter speaks of a need to "work out your salvation" in the literal sense is falling FROM grace themselves, and falling INTO works.
Really? So that would mean that faith is a work. It is what we add to. Virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly love and love... works that make one a legalist? Interesting concept... share how that is works and simply exactly what we ought to do?

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:42 AM
So I was pondering this on the way to work this morning ...

let's say for argument's sake that this is speaking about losing your salvation. Where is the "but don't worry, God will again forgive you if you repent"? You see, when John speaks about it in 1 John, he comforts those he is addressing with the encouragement of the gospel.

Peter, on the other hand, moves ahead simply saying "I say this by way of reminder ..." right?

Does Peter not have "the gift of encouragement" or something?

Why does Peter, the Apostle, neglect the gospel in this warning?

Something to consider, I supposeHe's not writing to unbelievers who have already believed in the gospel. ;) He is warning, encouraging, teaching. That is what the entire letter is. He is not preaching the gospel to those already believers in the gospel. That wouldn't be at all necessary!

BroRog
Jul 31st 2008, 01:47 AM
To the question that this thread asks,

Those verses have nothing to do with losing your salvation.

By the way, why, oh why, would anyone give his life to Christ just for the sake of it. If we understood the glory that follows the newness of life in Christ Jesus no Christian will make room in his life to live an ineffective christian life which is what those verses are talking about.

It is a miserable thing even to give your life to Christ just to avoid hell. Boring! It is THE LIFE to live

The passage is not necessarily about losing salvation, but it has nothing at all with living the "effective life." Peter's focus is on the salvation of the reader, suggesting that the reader "make certain about his calling." We are looking for evidence that the faith is genuine.

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

According to his first epistle, its a foregone conclusion that if a person is born again, he or she will make it to the next age to be with Jesus. The question at hand is whether I am one of those born again or not. It would be easy for me to say I'm born again. But am I really born again? That's the question. The answer Peter gives involves a bit of introspection and observation.

The list he gives is not a means to an abundant, effective life, but a test of whether I am born again or not.

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:47 AM
What question? Where do those who don't know Christ go?

They don't GO anywhere. They are CAST into the lake of fire.

The point of my post is that you seem to think that it is knowledge that SAVES us. It is not knowledge that saves. It is knowledge that makes us fruitful, which is the entire point of 2Pet1.

:OFFT:

The original point of this post was to discover if 2 Peter 1:5-11 is speaking of losing salvation. I have yet to see anyone use the text to support this opinion. I've seen speculation and out of context comments, but to take the whole chapter into consideration, we KNOW that this chapter is speaking of fruitfulness and effectiveness. Nowhere does the Apostle mention salvation. Nowhere does he mention judgment or hell. Nowhere does he present the gospel.

He does mention judgment in chapter 2, but that is a different pericope altogether.Sure it does!!!

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
14 ¶Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness,
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

ProjectPeter
Jul 31st 2008, 01:49 AM
The passage is not necessarily about losing salvation, but it has nothing at all with living the "effective life." Peter's focus is on the salvation of the reader, suggesting that the reader "make certain about his calling." We are looking for evidence that the faith is genuine.

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

According to his first epistle, its a foregone conclusion that if a person is born again, he or she will make it to the next age to be with Jesus. The question at hand is whether I am one of those born again or not. It would be easy for me to say I'm born again. But am I really born again? That's the question. The answer Peter gives involves a bit of introspection and observation.

The list he gives is not a means to an abundant, effective life, but a test of whether I am born again or not.
Okay.,.. I know that ultimately we will disagree but here... we do agree. I'll chalk that one up as one of them there SURE ENOUGH miracles! :lol:

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 31st 2008, 02:14 AM
You dodged the question. I'm not speaking on unlimited/limited atonement. I'm asking what Peter meant when he addressed the recipients of his letters, for there is clearly a group that is called "God's Elect". I believe these to be those who are given to the Son by the Father.

Take two:

Do you think Christ will lose some of His Elect? What does Peter mean when he addresses these people "God's elect" in 1Peter and "those who have a like faith as us" in 2 Peter?

(for the record, I believe your options are not exhaustive -- there are others, but I desire to remain focused and not rabbit trail any more than we already have)

The Bible says in the latter times people will depart from the faith and the love of many will grow cold. I am inclined to believe that someone must be IN the faith to depart from the faith. So to answer your question...I say yes it is possible.

On the other hand I believe that by faith we can say that we (Christians) are the elect but we will not actually be the elect until we have received the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls. At that time those who endured to the end will be the elect. Then the answer to your question is...no it is not possible.

The foreknowledge of God to choose, elect, predestinate a people refers to the Gentile people. This is who Peter is writing to. From the beginning God's devine plan was to reconcile the whole world to Him...for those who choose to follow after righteousness and seek after glory and honor will receive eternal life. This eternal life is given at the END of our faith...not at the beginning or the middle.

And my options are exhaustive...either God gets what He wants or He doesn't. It's simple...If He does then ALL will be saved. If He doesn't then not ALL men will be saved. We know for a fact that ALL men will not be saved and we know that God WILL always get what He wants. If it was up to Him and He predestined/elected some but not ALL then the verse that says God wishes ALL men to be saved is incorrect.

humbled
Jul 31st 2008, 03:41 AM
The Bible says in the latter times people will depart from the faith and the love of many will grow cold. I am inclined to believe that someone must be IN the faith to depart from the faith. So to answer your question...I say yes it is possible. First of all, it says THE faith, not THEIR faith. They left Christianity, but they were never Christians. This is clear, for Jesus' own words bear witness to this fact:

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."


On the other hand I believe that by faith we can say that we (Christians) are the elect but we will not actually be the elect until we have received the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls. At that time those who endured to the end will be the elect. Then the answer to your question is...no it is not possible.
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.


The foreknowledge of God to choose, elect, predestinate a people refers to the Gentile people. This is who Peter is writing to. From the beginning God's devine plan was to reconcile the whole world to Him...for those who choose to follow after righteousness and seek after glory and honor will receive eternal life. This eternal life is given at the END of our faith...not at the beginning or the middle.You have no evidence to support the claim that Peter is writing to Gentiles, other than your doctrine demanding it in order to support your theories. See, you need Peter to be writing to the Gentiles, so you can say that "the elect" are both "the Gentile people" AND "people who have received the end of their faith" (does that include some Jews?). You're flopping on this one, bud. Stick to the facts and try not to speculate.

I tend to believe that since Peter was an Apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8) that he was writing to "Messianic Jews" who were scattered by persecution. This article tends to put my thoughts into words regarding this topic:

http://lastdays.bereans.org/2.html

An exerpt:

In regard to those to whom Peter wrote, we remark that they were Christian Hebrews residing in certain provinces of Anatolia, and therefore styled, Chosen sojourners of a dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. They were Jews residing in these countries, who had been ecclesiastically separated from their countrymen by a separation, or sanctification (which is the same thing) of spirit. Many of them had, doubtless, heard Peter on the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit descended upon the Apostleship of the Circumcision so copiously and visibly. We have reason to believe this, because Luke, in Acts 2:9, says that there were Jews in Jerusalem who witnessed the outpouring of spirit and power, from Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia. Peter and the rest of the apostles, filled with the spirit, spoke to them of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; and urged them to save themselves from the last. The result of this Spirit-manifestation in word and gifts, was the separation of them from the sacrificial worship of the temple into a submissive hearkening to, or obedience ; and unto a sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood, in their doing what is prescribed in Acts 2:38
...
And my options are exhaustive...either God gets what He wants or He doesn't. It's simple...If He does then ALL will be saved. If He doesn't then not ALL men will be saved. We know for a fact that ALL men will not be saved and we know that God WILL always get what He wants. If it was up to Him and He predestined/elected some but not ALL then the verse that says God wishes ALL men to be saved is incorrect.Consider these verses:
Job 23:13 But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

It is clear that God gets what He wants. So .. DOES God want the salvation of every single individual? Does He really? Then why does He not get it, if Scripture claims that He gets WHATEVER HE DESIRES? Paul answers:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

2 Peter 2:20
Jul 31st 2008, 04:42 PM
First of all, it says THE faith, not THEIR faith. They left Christianity, but they were never Christians. This is clear, for Jesus' own words bear witness to this fact:

So how can a FALSE Christian leave Christianity? That is not possible. Is a FALSE Christian going to pull the wool over God's eyes and fool Him? Of course not. God gave Paul the message to write to Timothy. In other words Paul was speaking the words of God. So God is saying that in the latter times some WILL depart from the faith. Notice Paul didn't end the passage by saying "that their faith was not real or true".

An example of this would be if I were to say that I am leaving West Virginia. I would at some point have to be in West Virginia to leave it. Wouldn't I? I couldn't physically leave West Virginia without being there.

Remember this is God saying that some will depart from the faith...not man. Man can be fooled and if it was just a man saying that some will depart from the faith we could say that he could be talking about FALSE professors of the faith.



Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.


And who wrote this?? Paul
And who did he write to?? The Ephesians
And who were the Ephesians?? Gentiles



You have no evidence to support the claim that Peter is writing to Gentiles, other than your doctrine demanding it in order to support your theories. See, you need Peter to be writing to the Gentiles, so you can say that "the elect" are both "the Gentile people" AND "people who have received the end of their faith" (does that include some Jews?). You're flopping on this one, bud. Stick to the facts and try not to speculate.


It lists the areas he was writing to...Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Were these Jewish or Gentile cities?? I would go with choice number 2.


I tend to believe that since Peter was an Apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8) that he was writing to "Messianic Jews" who were scattered by persecution.

I agree that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews...but that doesn't at all keep him from addressing the Gentiles. Who was it that went to Cornelius' house? Peter.

pius4tina
Jul 31st 2008, 04:54 PM
Well I am new to the topic but see, the secret things belong to God but the revealed things belong to us.God knew His own from the foundation of the world.Deut 29:29

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 1st 2008, 01:25 AM
You have no evidence to support the claim that Peter is writing to Gentiles, other than your doctrine demanding it in order to support your theories. See, you need Peter to be writing to the Gentiles, so you can say that "the elect" are both "the Gentile people" AND "people who have received the end of their faith" (does that include some Jews?). You're flopping on this one, bud. Stick to the facts and try not to speculate.


I would like to add these few verses to show that there is evidence...

1:14
14 Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance.

The Jews had the Law...The Gentiles on the other hand were known to actively fulfill the desires of the flesh

2:10

10 Once you were not a people,
but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
but now you have received mercy.
[/URL] (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1730395#_ftn1)
We know that Israel has been God's people. So this must be talking about another group of people for it says that they were not a people...The Gentiles.

4:3
3 For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. 4 In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you.

Now I'll give you commentary as evidence...

To the strangers scattered. The Greek word for scattered (Gr diaspora) means literally “to sow through,” and was a technical term for Jews who lived outside of Palestine. Here it is applied to Gentile Christians who figuratively were sown throughout the world by God to be a witness for Him. Although they live in these various Roman provinces, Peter looked upon these Christians as strangers, a word that means something like “landed immigrants,” and indicates that they are foreigners to the native residents, and that their permanent homeland and citizenship is in heaven. (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1730395#_ftn1)KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994. Thomas Nelson: Nashville





[URL="http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1730395#_ftnref1"]

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:32 PM
To my new friend "humbled"...

I just had to bump this topic because we have just scratched the surface and I don't want this to get lost in the sea of topics.

humbled
Aug 3rd 2008, 08:35 PM
To my new friend "humbled"...

I just had to bump this topic because we have just scratched the surface and I don't want this to get lost in the sea of topics.Yes, friend. I have been very busy at work and had nearly no time to sit and post on this board. Forgive my delayed response.

I did want to point out a few things in regard to the recipients of Peter's letters.

Let us continue on one part:


Originally Posted by 2 Peter 2:20 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1731044#post1731044)
So how can a FALSE Christian leave Christianity? That is not possible. Is a FALSE Christian going to pull the wool over God's eyes and fool Him? Of course not. God gave Paul the message to write to Timothy. In other words Paul was speaking the words of God. So God is saying that in the latter times some WILL depart from the faith. Notice Paul didn't end the passage by saying "that their faith was not real or true".

An example of this would be if I were to say that I am leaving West Virginia. I would at some point have to be in West Virginia to leave it. Wouldn't I? I couldn't physically leave West Virginia without being there.

Remember this is God saying that some will depart from the faith...not man. Man can be fooled and if it was just a man saying that some will depart from the faith we could say that he could be talking about FALSE professors of the faith.

And who wrote this?? Paul
And who did he write to?? The Ephesians
And who were the Ephesians?? Gentiles

It lists the areas he was writing to...Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Were these Jewish or Gentile cities?? I would go with choice number 2.

I agree that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews...but that doesn't at all keep him from addressing the Gentiles. Who was it that went to Cornelius' house? Peter.
From where were they exiles? They were not natives to those cities, or they would not be considered exiles, agreed? I submit they were exiles from Jerusalem (or Israel if you prefer).

1 Peter 2:12 says they should "keep their conduct among the Gentiles honorable ..." if they WERE Gentiles, I would imagine it would say "keep your conduct among ONE ANOTHER honorable", agreed? I think it is more likely that the Apostle to the Jews was writing to the Jews.

I hope we can come to an agreement as to whom Peter was writing to. It is important for the overall context, I believe.

I believe once we end this rabbit trail, we can move back to the topic at hand. but I wanted to end this with Peter's own words.

Blessings

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 3rd 2008, 11:17 PM
Yes, friend. I have been very busy at work and had nearly no time to sit and post on this board. Forgive my delayed response.

I did want to point out a few things in regard to the recipients of Peter's letters.

Let us continue on one part:

From where were they exiles? They were not natives to those cities, or they would not be considered exiles, agreed? I submit they were exiles from Jerusalem (or Israel if you prefer).

1 Peter 2:12 says they should "keep their conduct among the Gentiles honorable ..." if they WERE Gentiles, I would imagine it would say "keep your conduct among ONE ANOTHER honorable", agreed? I think it is more likely that the Apostle to the Jews was writing to the Jews.

I hope we can come to an agreement as to whom Peter was writing to. It is important for the overall context, I believe.

I believe once we end this rabbit trail, we can move back to the topic at hand. but I wanted to end this with Peter's own words.

Blessings

Yes, I see where you are coming from and yes I believe there were Jews among them at all of those places. They were scattered physically throughout the region. However, look at it from a spiritual perspective. Aren't all believers aliens and strangers of this world? So whether I am in North Carolina or West Virginia or any where else I will be a stranger in a strange land.

It didn't address them as Gentiles or Jews because they are the same once they are in Christ. Even though they might have been Gentiles by birth they were no longer thought of as Gentiles. They were Christians.

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 6th 2008, 11:40 AM
Alright humbled...

This is my last bump. :lol:

humbled
Aug 6th 2008, 12:03 PM
Alright humbled...

This is my last bump. :lol:As much as I would love to sit down and hash out an argument, I'm afraid I don't have time for more than a few snippets here and there, my friend ... For example, I left for work yesterday at 5am. I got home last night at 8:30pm. :help:

That's been typical as of late. So I beg your indulgence for a time. I'm not sure where to go in this particular argument, tho ... the thread has sorta jumped track. Where were we again?

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 6th 2008, 03:50 PM
As much as I would love to sit down and hash out an argument, I'm afraid I don't have time for more than a few snippets here and there, my friend ... For example, I left for work yesterday at 5am. I got home last night at 8:30pm. :help:

That's been typical as of late. So I beg your indulgence for a time. I'm not sure where to go in this particular argument, tho ... the thread has sorta jumped track. Where were we again?

I understand being busy...
I've just recently had the time to start posting again. I was just having so much fun in this topic:lol: