2 Peter 21

On further reflection, the word kurios is used lots of times to mean God, the Father so there's not a clear cut distinction that one always means the Father and the other one always means the Son. Also, in 2nd Timothy 2:21 the word despotes is translated master, meaning Jesus. So, there's nothing that absolutely demands that the "Lord" in 2nd Peter 2 can only mean God the Father and not Jesus. Given the context it would seem that Lord=Jesus is the more reasonable explanation, even though that does appear to play havoc with OSAS.

 

Amy,

That is 2nd Peter 2:20:

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.

Les

 

Thank you. I don't know how I missed it.

These false teachers that are being spoken of are not saved individuals. We can know this by these statements:

They bring swift destruction on themselves. vs. 1

Their judgement is from long ago and is still active. vs. 3

They are compared to the angels that sinned, the ancient world (except Noah) that was judged in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah. vs. 4-6

They never cease from sin. vs. 14

Have forsaken the right way and loved unrighteousness. vs. 15

Hell has been preserved for them. vs.17

They are slaves of corruption. vs. 19

The NASB says "Knowledge of the Lord" in vs. 20. I don't think this means they were saved. People can have knowledge of God, but are still unwilling to submit.

These people seem to have left the way of unrighteousness for a time, and their knowledge of the Lord confirms that their ways are sinful, but have returned to their sin like a dog returns to it's vomit.
It would have been better for them (in the day of judgement) had they NOT learned of their wickedness than to have been shown it and preferred to stay in it.

IMHO.

 

Well put Amy, and a key point to understanding this passage, and why the most reasonable understanding is that this is referring to God the Father, and not the Son of God, also in that there is nothing in the context of this passsage to be a teaching on the atonement.

I would also submit that the doctrine of universal redemption is not necessary to understand the passage biblically.

 

It just seems to be plain to me that Peter is talking about people that were saved and have now, through some kind of heresy, renounced Christ.

Any other interpretation seems to be bending scripture around to fit our notions of what OSAS means - IMHO.

Les

 

If that is the case then we do not have eternal security and those that belong to Christ can't be kept by Christ. I do not belive that. I believe that God has sealed us with the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption just like scripture says.

What makes you think those false teachers were saved? I do not see any sign of that.

 

That would not be accurate Les. Do you agree with the interpretive principle to let Scripture interpret Scripture? I do. Meaning, if Scripture is clear and plain upon one point, it can shed great light on other passages that may be less clear or the subject of controversy.

It also could be said that your interpretation of this passage is a tenacious holding to your prior belief that one can lose their salvation. When Jesus tells us that those whom the Father gives Him will never perish, we believe Him. And we use that light to help us understand and biblically interpret this passage.

 

Well I still maintain that 2nd Peter 2:20 is saying they were saved at one point:

If 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.

Note that Peter writes that "they have escaped the corruption of the world". That sure sounds like they came out of the world and into Christ. Also, Peter says "by knowing", not that they knew "about" Jesus but that they "knew" Jesus. Finally Peter says "again entangled" with the world, indicating that they have gone back to being as they were before. If they can go back to the world, they must have been out of it at some point.

Here's some more passages about knowing Jesus that speak of knowing Christ in the context of saved believers:

1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.

2 Peter 1:8
For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2
1I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Philippians 3:8
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

It seems that all these passages are talking about "knowing" Christ, not knowing "about" Him. The passage in Peter is saying the same thing.

I'm not trying to disprove OSAS or anything, just trying to look at this passage without any preconceived notions.

Les

 

What "prior belief that one can lose their salvation"?????

I think we do look at scripture differently to some extent. I do believe in allowing Scripture to interpret itself. But, for me, just because a scripture may challenge a pre-conceived belief doesn't mean it is time to re-interpret that verse to make it conform to what I already think I know. Instead, it may mean that perhaps my previous understanding needs to be challenged. As far as I'm concerned there are no sacred cows and I just have to go where scripture takes me.

Les

 

Les, by saying the false teachers were saved, you are saying that they lost their salvation.
I disagree and thought I showed that they were not saved in my post #23.

You cannot believe OSAS and think those false teachers were saved.

 

I think that what the verse is talking about, not that they were ever saved, but that they knew how to be saved and deliberately turned from that gospel. They know the way of righteousness, they may have even known Christ like Judas did, but they never accepted and received salvation.

Most people that reject God do so out of ignorance. They might know some things of God but having rejected them the full gospel is never revealed to them. The exception to this is the false teachers or the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Those who knew the scripture, who knew the gospel, yet reject it knowing full well what they are doing. Whether for political or material gain or for some position on this earth they willingly reject the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes it will be terrible for them in eternity.

 

1. What Les has said cannot be dismissed lightly. Peter says, "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first" (v.20, NASB).

2. But if all whom God has justified, these he also glorified (Rom 8:30), then we must understand Peter without contradicting Paul.

 

You said it better than me.

 

Or at least not believe it the way I am "supposed to" believe it.

Les

 

Les, you've confused me. Not a hard thing to do! :laugh:

How many ways are there to believe OSAS?

 

What I mean is there is the traditional understanding of Eternal Security, or OSAS, where we have taken that to mean that once we're in, we're in, and couldn't get out if we wanted to, no matter what we do. Then, when we run up on a passage like the one in 2nd Peter, we kind of go to figuring out a way to keep it from conflicting with what we already believe.

What I'm wondering is if scripture really teaches OSAS the way we think it does, are or there nuances there that we are missing. I have no doubt that as long as we hang on to Jesus as Saviour He won't let go of us. But, can we let go of Him? Do we lose our free will when we are saved?

I guess none of that goes with how I'm supposed to think about OSAS.

Les

 

Could the denying not also be of this sort?

Titus 1:16
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

That would seem to line up with verse 21.

2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

 

Salvation is not by the will of man. Do not go excluding such verses as John 1:12,13

It is not necessary to rely on a percieved notion of what one passage says. We must compare this passage against others in order to interpret it correctly.

These were false teachers. Could this passage also be speaking of those who came in to the church on a false idea of what a Christian was?

 

Galatians 2:20 that says I have been crucified with Christ. It is not me that lives, but Christ in me.

We took this scripture all over the place, but I still stick to what I said before. This is just another scripture telling us, how impossible it is to fall from Grace.
I know most believe different, but if I believe this meant a child could fall, I would quit preaching OSAS.

BBob,

 

2 Peter 2:21 is not always focus on leaders or pastors only. It apply to any individual. This telling us, it is much worst for any individual who already know Christ and did followed the Commandments, but, afterward they turned away from Christ than anyone never hear gospel.

Early in my Christian life, I used to believe in unconditional security salvation as what baptist church taught me. I learned many things in the Bible showing me lot of conditionals with warnings, there is much conflict with unconditional security salvation doctrine.

Notice 1 Peter 2:20 - "end is worse with them THAN the beginning."

'Beginning' shows us, it means, at the first place, a person did repent of sins, and did believed in Christ for salvation, but later afterward, they turn away from the Lord is much worst than at the beginning.

Clear, this is speak against unconditional security salvation.

If suppose, a person turn away from the Lord, and remain in sins without confess or repent at the end, by the time they die, will be end up in fire everlasting.

Throughout whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation talk lot on conditional with warnings, no way we can afford to neglect them, we must take heed God's Word.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!