2 Peter 2:1

[thepaulinator]

2 Pet 2:1, (KJV), But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Could someone explain this in light of the fact that Christ only "bought" salvation for those who would never deny him.

[Robert R. Higby]

We have discussed this passage before on this board, so it is somewhere in the archives. As I remember it, the Greek word for 'bought' does not refer to special redemption, i.e. grace, but to creative ownership. The context is that these false teachers deny the very Lord who created and owns them.

[wildboar]

I don't quite understand the idea of this relating to God's relationship as Creator. The word has the sense of buying in the sense of purchasing them from something and I don't understand how by creating them God would be purchasing them from anyone.

I think a better explanation may be that this passage is speaking of these people in the sense of the external church. The Bible often does this. We know that not all Israel is truly Israel. We also find examples in the New Testament where people are spoken of as those who have apostacized and spoken of as Christians but other passages say that such people were not of the group of Christians to begin with. The Bible speaks of both the church as it exists visibly and as we observe it and the catholic church.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

[Jason777]

I'm wondering if that phrase "denying the Lord that bought them" could have been translated better. The way it reads, it would appear that true Christians could irreversibly fall away into apostasy, and the Scriptures do not teach this.

I'd say wildboar is on the mark here. Wonder if the same situation is implied in Revelation 11:1-2?

[disciple]

here's my take.

i think WB is correct in his caution here. this word is used of Christ's sacrifice (1 co 6:20, 7:23; Rev 5:9). the word was also used to refer to buying at the town market (i may be wrong on this, but i thought this word was also used to refer to being bought from the slave market) as well as just to generically refer to simply purchasing something.

first we must note a few things. nothing about Christ's atonement (death) is mentioned. Jesus Christ, the Son, the Only-Begotten, the Firstborn, etc. is not mentioned specifically so it may not even be specifically talking about the LOGOS in His incarnation and crucifixion. the word used here translated Master or Lord is DEPSOTES (used to refer to the master in a slave/owner relationship; we get our word despot from this).

with all that said, i think this is an application of the slave/master metaphor to these prophets and teachers who appear to be masquerading (pretending) to be real when they are in fact false (PSEUDO; PSEUDOPROFETAI and PSEUDODIDASKALOI). so peter's metaphor seems to be sort of tongue-in-cheek or irony. these folks should be obedient servants, but instead are rebelling against the one they claim as their master and trying to lead an insurrection through deceptive teaching. nothing here suggests that the vicarious atonement or substitutionary death of Christ is in view here if that's how people are tempted to read it.

[Ivor Thomas]

These are unsteady souls, who are sold on there master,but even do worse than they know from him, this master is not The Lord Jesus Christ,they try there merchandise of damnable heresies,but reading on through chapter we see who they are ,and their terrible end,...Ivor Thomas......:cool:

[wildboar]

I think disciple is correct. I think there is certainly some irony or perhaps even some sarcasm found here. Paul may certainly be condemning them for claiming to be bought by Christ but denying His teachings. It reminds me of Jesus telling the Pharisees that He did not come to save the righteous.

[disciple]

I think disciple is correct. I think there is certainly some irony or perhaps even some sarcasm found here. Paul may certainly be condemning them for claiming to be bought by Christ but denying His teachings. It reminds me of Jesus telling the Pharisees that He did not come to save the righteous.it also reminds me of this:

2 Co 11:1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully...12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

these folks are just tares in the field (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43) that come in and claim to be someone they are not. they are crafty deceivers just like their true master, the devil. i think paul's warning to the ephesian elders is perpetually applicable to the church:

Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

the very nature of false teachers is that they pretend to be something they are not in order to gain a foothold (trust) and introduce their heresies undetected. but they are false. we should not conclude from peter's words in 2 Pe 2:1, that instead, these false teachers are actually genuine blood-bought Christians who just lost their status because of their inability to keep it. i think this is definitely altogether a foreign idea to peter's words and something that must be read into them because of the reader's particular theology that they bring to the text (e.g., semi-pelagianism). it cannot be substantiated from the text itself.

[swarm_mom]

This is a great discussion. I do a lot of online discussion with Wesleyans and I thought they had pulled every Scripture that they feels disproves the preservation of the Saints . This one has never been used. So now I have a heads up

When in doubt I always look to Gill

the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work;

that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deuteronomy 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:

and bring upon themselves swift destruction; either in this life, being suddenly cut off in the midst of their days, and by the immediate hand of God, as Arius and other heretics have been; or eternal damnation in the other, which their tenets lead unto, and which will swiftly come upon them when they are promising themselves peace and safety.

[disciple]

see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:when saying "that the persons he writes to were Jews" is he referring to peter (i.e., that peter was writing to jews only)? if so, i wonder why gill would would limit it to jewish false prophets and teachers and i wonder what this would have to do with the interpretation and application of the text.

[harald]

While I hold Gill in high esteem it must be said he was not always right on in his comments. I will not now say anything on his comment on this verse.

I think 2Peter 2:1 can be considered in the light of Jude 4 ff. , where also is to be found the word "despotês". In v. 5 Judas says the Lord saved a people out of Egypt's land. To me this throws some light on the "bought them" of the Peter verse in question. Also at the end of this chapter Peter talks about escaping the corruptions of the world through the EPIGNÔSIS (v. 20) of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I believe this may have reference to the "bought them". Those in v. 1 seems to be people who do know the true Biblical Gospel, Peter uses the noun EPIGNÔSIS in v. 20, and the cognate verb twice in v. 21. This speaks of full or accurate knowledge and to know fully respectively. What Peter has in mind is an accurate knowledge of the Scriptural Gospel, yet in the letter ("word", cp. 1Thess. 1:5) of it only. The root of the matter is not in them, therefore there is this possibility of "denying" the sovereign Master having bought (not redeemed in a spiritual and saving measure) them.

I come to think of an example of such a false teacher in later days while writing this. His name was William Wileman, and he was among the British Gospel Standard Baptists, which I believe were a true and orthodox body of professing Christians back then in the late 1800's and early 1900's when Wileman was among them. At one point in his profession he apostatized in such measure so as to deny the truth of the particularity of Christ's redemption, having once firmly believed particular redemption. From what I have read he remained apostate to the end.

Another example would be from among the American Old School Predestinarian Baptists of the 1800's, of which there is certain grounds to believe they also were a true and orthodox Christian body, generally speaking. The name of the man I have in mind was Wilson Thompson. He was born in the late 1700s and lived until just past the 1850's. At some point in his profession he turned heterodox in his christology, and began maintaining things which were quite similar to classical Sabellianism. I believe this took place in the 1820s or just after. Some of that body repudiated him as a heretic, but others tolerated him as if he was not in error at all.

These are very solemn things, and should never be treated lightly.


Harald

[Robert R. Higby]

Harald states:
Another example would be from among the American Old School Predestinarian Baptists of the 1800's, of which there is certain grounds to believe they also were a true and orthodox Christian body, generally speaking.

What is the evidence for this? I'm not denying every aspect of what you are affirming. However, most 'old school' Baptistism (as well as every other form of Baptistism) has been demonstrated in the final outworking of history to consist of popery and schism. Why are these Baptists different?

Although I have encountered various schools of thought among Primitive Baptists, I have yet to encounter any who believe the true gospel as I perceive it. Most are hung up on a view of God's sovereignty that would deny assurance of salvation through the witness of the Spirit in us, i.e., personal faith. Many of this 'old school' persuasion would have us believe that when Paul speaks of justification by faith, it is Christ's personal faith that he refers to, not something in us. So if only a portion of biological humanity is to be saved (which scripture clearly teaches), we cannot have personal assurance at all. According to this teaching, no one can know for sure if he/she has faith.

On 2 Peter 2:1
Many would deny that Peter refers to creative ownership, since the Greek word refers to one human owning another. But God owns all persons, both saved and lost. The lost he owns not by redemption but by creation. However one wants to justify it, if God is sovereign, he owns the souls of all persons. Creation is one evidence of this but even better is the evidence of God's predestination (before creation) of all eternal souls to eternal life or eternal punishment. He owns all whom he determined to create for eternal glory or eternal shame, exponentially more than a master owns his slave.

[disciple]

On 2 Peter 2:1
Many would deny that Peter refers to creative ownership, since the Greek word refers to one human owning another. But God owns all persons, both saved and lost. The lost he owns not by redemption but by creation. However one wants to justify it, if God is sovereign, he owns the souls of all persons. Creation is one evidence of this but even better is the evidence of God's predestination (before creation) of all eternal souls to eternal life or eternal punishment. He owns all whom he determined to create for eternal glory or eternal shame, exponentially more than a master owns his slave.so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?

[Robert R. Higby]

Disciple:
so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?

well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.

When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner.

It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.

Much has been written on this; Gordon Clark's New Heavens, New Earth and Gary D. Long's Definite Atonement discuss the issue extensively. I have to go now but will post a few quotations soon.

[swarm_mom]

Disciple:
so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?

well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.

When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner.

It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.

Much has been written on this; Gordon Clark's New Heavens, New Earth and Gary D. Long's Definite Atonement discuss the issue extensively. I have to go now but will post a few quotations soon.

Thank you ,
As we read the NT Epistles we so often see a direct or indirect reference by the apostles to an OT theme that Jew would know well and often verified their position as an elect nation.

As I read Gill this seemed to be one of them.

As I read the text in context the subject is false shepherds to Israel

2Pe 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


Here Peter seems to blend the false Shepherds and the false teachers of Israel and then blend that into the current condition. So it would seem that the topic was the Israel of the OT so to use a use of a familiar quote from Deut. would not be out of place at all.

[harald]

Bill Twisse. When I said "certain grounds" I meant "some" grounds. This is how I perceive it as respects the 1800s Old School Predestinarian Baptists, I do not mean to dogmatically say that it is the very truth of God. It may be or it may not be. I base my perception of them on what I have read of their "chief men". And I am not now talking about "Conditional Time Salvation" Primitive Baptists, but Old School Absolute Predestinarians, of whom said W Thompson was. In his days there were no CTS faction among them. It came later on.
When you say Baptistism has consisted of popery, what mean you? Can you give some example? As for schism I know there has been schism among Baptist groups. Whether or not one likes to think of the apostolic era Christians as "Baptists" there were also schism among them to some degree, here and there. So the schism thing is nothing which negates a movement as not being raised up of God. But the popery thing makes me curious.

As to Primitive Baptists and faith and assurance I think you are not being truthful. You paint with a big brush. There are many different views among them, some would be as you say. Some not. Most Primitive Baptists, including Absolute Predestinarians, I have encountered tend to distinguish between justification before God and justification before conscience, the latter sometimes referred to as experimental justification. Justification before God they say is by Christ's faith or faithfulness, His righteousness, and it imputed. As to experimental justification they say it is "through faith in Christ", at least many express themselves thusly. As to me I agree with them in making such distinction, but disagree with some of them as to the particulars and explanations of these two justifications.

But I shall state that this day I am most uneasy, generally speaking, when it comes to both Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists as well as non-absoluter Primitives. I will not say anything, except that one reason is what some of their chief men (Trott, Beebe etc.) have maintained about Christ's Sonship.

Harald

[disciple]

well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.which argument are you specifically referring to? i don't recall her actually making an argument but simply posting Gill.


When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner. i agree that this passage is not talking about the atonement (at least not specifically or in reality to their case). i do not believe the context supports that contention. but i'm struggling through how the figure of a slave/owner relationship of the owner buying/purchasing the slave and applying that to creation. it just doesn't seem to work.


It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.deut 32:6 may indeed be a helpful text in this. but the question is, is this parallelism or is the buying referring to one thing (e.g., redemption of the nation out of egypt) while the making and establishing referring to another (e.g., creation, founding of the nation)? in the LXX the word used here is KTAOMAI which means to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess. i don't know what this different word would indicate or what nuance this might have that the one peter used doesn't. the word peter uses seems to indicate an actually buying while the one used in deut 32:6 seems to indicate just the simple aspect of getting or acquiring (without a reference to how it was acquired, e.g., buying as opposed to receiving as a gift or stealing).

out of curiosity, what do you see wrong with the view that this is irony or sarcasm? what specific problems do you see with this view?

[disciple]

2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Here Peter seems to blend the false Shepherds and the false teachers of Israel and then blend that into the current condition. So it would seem that the topic was the Israel of the OT so to use a use of a familiar quote from Deut. would not be out of place at all.i agree that this is an allusion to OT false prophets to the nation of israel. this may also support the contention that the buying is referring to the redemption out of egypt (but this was a type of the redemption of the NC). the question that needs to be answered is whether or not peter is writing specifically or primarily to jews. he was indeed an apostle to the jews as paul was an apostle to the gentiles (gal 2:8). but the question is in what sense would either redemption (that out of egypt or out of sin) truly apply to the current false teachers among the readers:

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets arose [aorist tense] among the people [allusion to OT israel], just as there will be [future tense] false teachers among you [application to the readers' situation, i.e., the NC people]. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves.

i think it is a definite allusion to the OT (perhaps Deut 32:6 and others) as well as to the redemption out of egypt, but i believe he is using irony because in neither sense were they truly bought (from egypt or sin; in type or antitype). what do yall think?

[GraceAmbassador]

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets arose [aorist tense] among the people [allusion to OT israel], just as there will be [future tense] false teachers among you [application to the readers' situation, i.e., the NC people]. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves.

i think it is a definite allusion to the OT (perhaps Deut 32:6 and others) as well as to the redemption out of egypt, but i believe he is using irony because in neither sense were they truly bought (from egypt or sin; in type or antitype). what do yall think?I never looked at this issue very closely, but it seems to me that in the O.T. some "prophets" rose among the people since the people waited for Moses to come down from the mountain. These "false" prophets, who led the people to "false worship" were to be a "never-ending" presence among Israel and later among the Ek-klesia.

The term "denying the Master who bought them", it is either Peter's irony or the fact that "bought them" is not a "salvific term" or both. The Lord had "brought and bought Korah" and others out of Egypt, but they suffered swift desctruction, not by being shipped back to Egypt but by being physically destroyed and cut off from the people; having the earth literally opening up and swallwoing them.

I believe that Peter is referring to this type of "buying" and this type of [/b]"destruction"[/b]. Again, I am open for correction. This text proves a couple of things and none is what Arminians what to make of it:


God will not "ship back" into perdition those who he "saved" or "bought" from perdition (assuming that "bought" is salvific). Or assuming that "bought" it is not salvific, God will not bring back to a tragic captivity those who deny Him, once He delivered from that capitivity. God, rather, will destroy physically, such as in a untimelly death those who rebel, teach and preach falsehoods. (there are other texts that speak of untimely physical death as a reward for sinning after salvation)
God will not "be unfaithful", but remain faithful on His "buying" of the false prophets assuming that the word is salvific, but He will harshly discipline, even with eternal and tragic physical destruction, those who rebel, teach and prech falsehoods. That does not mean, however, to unsave them.
Am I making any sense? What y'all think? I don't even know if I am on topic!;)

Milt

[Skeuos Eleos]

The following article by Gary Long proposes and examines four different interpretations. He concludes by saying that he favors what he calls the “Sovereign Creation View” which I think is what BT has in mind although he states that he is unable to be “dogmatic in his preference”. I don’t think it fully, unequivocally answers all Disciple’s questions but does appear to provide the most credible answer in my opinion. The one thing I think it does do conclusively is to answer thepaulinator’s original post and show that this verse is NOT saying that these false teachers were actually bought in the sense of being redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ.

REDEMPTION IN II PETER 2:1 (http://www.the-highway.com/2Pet2.1.html)

Comments anyone?

Martin

(PS. It shows how long I’ve been dialoguing with Americans when I spell words the American way just so that it doesn’t detract from my point. :rolleyes:

Those of us who come from the country where the ENGLISH language ORIGINATES know full well that “favour” has a “u” in it. :p )

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, thanks Martin! You have posted my quotes for me! I had this paper book of Gary Long and was going to enter offline (when I had time) and then post the very quotations that you have provided!

[disciple]

The following article by Gary Long proposes and examines four different interpretations. He concludes by saying that he favors what he calls the “Sovereign Creation View” which I think is what BT has in mind although he states that he is unable to be “dogmatic in his preference”. I don’t think it fully, unequivocally answers all Disciple’s questions but does appear to provide the most credible answer in my opinion. The one thing I think it does do conclusively is to answer thepaulinator’s original post and show that this verse is NOT saying that these false teachers were actually bought in the sense of being redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ.

REDEMPTION IN II PETER 2:1 (http://www.the-highway.com/2Pet2.1.html)

Comments anyone?indeed. that was a very good article. i think i favor the temporal deliverance view because of context and i believe it does give adequate "full significance to the meaning of “bought” (agorazõ)" and "to the context of Deuteronomy 32:6."

My reasons for rejecting the sovereign creation view are as follows:


the assumption with the sovereign creation view is that he is unequivocally alluding to/quoting Deut 32:6. but this remains to be proven. he's certainly not using the LXX though he may be using/translating a hebrew text himself.
even if he is alluding to/quoting Deut 32:6 it must then be unequivocally proven that it is parallelism (that bought=creation; the focus of the 4th view seems to be creation but i believe that Deut 32:6 is not even talking about physical creation but creating/founding/establishing the nation) and not a reference to two different things (buying/redemption from egypt and creation/foundation of the nation, which makes much much more sense contextually in Deut 32:6).
i have real trouble with the figure of buying as a reference to creation. i do not know how this figure could be referring to this and long does not tell us how this figure might work or from where we might get this meaning of the figure. i have yet to see a reasonable answer to this.
i also have trouble with seeing this figure in 2 pe 2 as only referring to peter's contemporary jews who were presumably figuratively redeemed from egypt by the mere virtue of being jewish. for this to be true, it would have to be unequivocally proven that peter is only writing to jews and only referring to jewish false teachers. this then would not be applicable to any non-jewish false teachers. i think this would be a great stretch.
nothing in the context (other than a forced application of DESPOTHS) that peter is speaking of creation or founding of the/a nation.
my reasons for accepting the temporal deliverance view are as follows:

2 Pe 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...15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness...18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 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. 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 handed on 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."

it makes complete sense that these individuals who are claiming to be teachers for God/Christ in His church, as israel was redeemed from egypt and founded as a nation, so these false professors were bought thereby escaping the defilements of the world by their association with God's people. the irony is that what they should be that they are not and their true colors will show. in no sense is Christ's atonement in view--the buying, ownership, and slavery is a reference to their enslavement to corruption which they escaped for only a while by association to God's people and presumably a mental knowledge of Christ and the way of righteousness because of the commandments/information given to them.

as to the word agorazõ, it is a word that simply means to buy or purchase. we must not press it any further than this. after reading his article, i am not sure how the temporal deliverance view does not give full significance to this word. to me, this seems to be a danger of the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer (i.e., reading the full semantic range into the word each time it's used). i don't know what long is looking for in this word here and why he thinks that this view might fall short here.

i think there is more irony in Scripture than we are aware of. i believe peter is drawing a beautiful parallel between these false teachers (redemption from defilements) and OT false prophets (redemption from egypt) to show that the outcome for these folks will be the same as that for those who had gone before. there is no connection here at all with the substitionary atonement/death of Christ for sinners. if one sees this in the text, then they must have first put it there.

[harald]

disciple. I believe your view harmonizes with other Scripture passages, and does not bring in any contradictions as I see it. I think my view on the verse is quite similar to yours.


Harald

[Robert R. Higby]

I do not see a contradiction between these views that is substantive. The analogy is that just as God redeemed Israel from slavery but many of those rebelled and were condemned, even so God has redeemed many in the Christian age from an external life of sin who later prove themselves to be non-elect.

I do not accept the extreme distinction between agorazw and exagorazw (the intensive form) that some believe exists. The latter is often used of ownership without a redemption price being mentioned, such as 'owning' or 'redeeming' the time in Eph. 5:16, Col. 4:5. Even though agorazo is rooted in the slave market and has the basic meaning of 'to purchase', the word may indeed have a broader range of uses in the koine Greek (such as 'to own intensively').

[wildboar]

BT:

I don't see an extreme distinction between exagorazw and agorazw either, but I'm still having difficulty seeing how you come to your definition of the meaning of the words.

The preposition ek denotes an intensive activity, a buying which exhausts the possibilities available (Buschel , TDNT 1, 128). In his commentary on Col 4:5, O'Brien translates the verse as "by snapping up every oppurtunity that comes" and I think he captures the sense well. I would have to see more evidence before I could conclude that this marketplace word is used to speak of something which always belonged to someone. In Col. and Eph. it is certainly being used metaphorically, but the idea of them already owning the time seems to be absent.

[GraceAmbassador]

B.T., W.B. and Disciple:

This is the context of 2 Peter 2:1, all the way up to verse 20:



20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 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. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

[/url][url="http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=24276#_ftnref1"] (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=24276#_ftn1)The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

How can we reconcile these verses when debating an Arminian, and say that verse 1 really does not mean "bought" in a salvific sense?

Don't get me wrong! I have not "backslided" into Arminianism and that will NEVER happen. However, one of the pillars of our argumentation in any difficult biblical passage is that we have to use the context in order to understand the text.

Seeing that the context here tells us that these pseudodidaskalos and pseudoprophetes says that "through the knowledge of Jesus Christ escaped the pollutions of this world; and that "it would had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness", how can we say that they were not "once elinghtened", to use another biblical expression, or even "saved"?.

Perhaps it is time for us to define what terminology in the Bible defines above and beyond shadow of doubt, what it means to be "eternally and unchangebly saved".

By our (mine) words, we have determined that it is not:

- being once elightened
- to know the way of righteousness
- not being bought in the sense of 2 Peter 2:1
- a few other expressions.

I have an idea when the Bible speaks of "eternal and unchangeable Salvation", the kind that the Elect has, but, should we not be more careful in defining it when and if presenting our arguments to an Arminian, such as an RCC person who brings these questions?

Please, let me know your thoughts.

[Robert R. Higby]

Milt,

Certainly there is an 'enlightenment' and a 'knowing' that is non-salvific; I think we can all agree on that! But the 'enlightenment' is not Holy Spirit regeneration and the 'knowledge' is not the intimate knowledge of God referred to in the Hebrew concept of 'to know'. Nonetheless, the realities spoken of (as in Hebrews) do encompass a certain illumination with regard to SOME of the correct facts of the gospel! Paul talked about those who preach many aspects of the true gospel of Christ but are lost--in Phil. 1:15-18. We have as many persons today as the sand on the seashore who proclaim this hypocritical phenomenon of 'gospel language' but deny the gospel.

Charles:
I would have to see more evidence before I could conclude that this marketplace word is used to speak of something which always belonged to someone.
But how can any deny it? The reprobates always belonged to God; he did not ever need to purchase them! The 'fathers' were hopelessly wrong on the notion that God needed to pay a ransom to the devil (I'm sure that you agree with this). When the NT speaks of a purchase price for our redemption, it has to be a price that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. Yet he owned the saved in every sense even before Christ paid this price! The event of the atonement only SEALED IN THE VAULT (humanly speaking) the purchase price that God had determined from eternity to owe to himself.

My problem with the 'hypothetical' view of 2 Pet. 2:1 is the same as my problem with any view of 'hypothetical' redemption buttressed by any passage. There is no such thing in the NT as a redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate, a purchase price that does not secure actual deliverance, a justification that does not guarantee eternal salvation (ala hyper-Fullerism), etc. This type of thinking and language is foreign to the New Testament.

So that is where I stand.

[GraceAmbassador]

Milt,

Certainly there is an 'enlightenment' and a 'knowing' that is non-salvific; I think we can all agree on that! But the 'enlightenment' is not Holy Spirit regeneration and the 'knowledge' is not the intimate knowledge of God referred to in the Hebrew concept of 'to know'. Nonetheless, the realities spoken of (as in Hebrews) do encompass a certain illumination with regard to SOME of the correct facts of the gospel! Paul talked about those who preach many aspects of the true gospel of Christ but are lost--in Phil. 1:15-18. We have as many persons today as the sand on the seashore who proclaim this hypocritical phenomenon of 'gospel language' but deny the gospel.
Dear Bill:

Thanks a million! I knew that if anyone could answer my question it would be you. Also, great quote on Phil. 1:15-18.

As you know, there are many people in the reformed camp who are dismissive of the type of questioning I presented labeling it "silly", whereas they find it difficult to answer something so "silly". My experience in presenting the Gospel to RCC people and staunch Arminians such as those in the A.G. camp, tells me that the arguments made from 2 Peter 2:1-22 that this type of questioning is not silly at all and many will not find any answers other that discussing about the Greek meaning of words; well, I would suggest that these reformed folk would attempt to discuss some of the Greek definition of these words with some Roman Catholic theologians I know; to say the least, the discussion would be endless and non-conclusive!

What will ultimately break any argument in favor of universal atonement which is what Arminians both in the RCC and in the A.G. camp want to present, is Biblical context, and some minimal harmonization of Apostolic teaching, and more importantly, as you pointed out the understanding that some words in the Bible are definetly not synonyms to Eternal, Irreversable and Unchangeable Salvation although they appear to be so, such as in the case of "elightenment and knowing".

Thank you very much for your answer!

Milt

[disciple]

How can we reconcile these verses when debating an Arminian, and say that verse 1 really does not mean "bought" in a salvific sense?...Seeing that the context here tells us that these pseudodidaskalos and pseudoprophetes says that "through the knowledge of Jesus Christ escaped the pollutions of this world; and that "it would had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness", how can we say that they were not "once elinghtened", to use another biblical expression, or even "saved"?...I have an idea when the Bible speaks of "eternal and unchangeable Salvation", the kind that the Elect has, but, should we not be more careful in defining it when and if presenting our arguments to an Arminian, such as an RCC person who brings these questions?

Please, let me know your thoughts.very good question milt! one i had in mind when i wrote, "in no sense is Christ's atonement in view--the buying, ownership, and slavery is a reference to their enslavement to corruption which they escaped for only a while by association to God's people and presumably a mental knowledge of Christ and the way of righteousness because of the commandments/information given to them."

to me it is plain that there will be always be imposters and deceivers among us who claim to be what they are not. but their end will demonstrate the reality of their profession. i believe they had only knowledge (devoid of life) because they had been delivered the commandments. this knowledge was no different than the knowledge of those that bill mentioned in Phil 1:15-18 as well as simon magus (acts 8:13ff), those mentioned by jesus in Mt 7:15-29, the seeds in Mt 13:20-21 (Mk 4:5-6, 16-17; Lk 8:13), the demons (jas 2:9), and others.

2 Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world (this defines the "redemption" or what "the buying" is) 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. 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 handed on 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."

so what is the result? are we to assume that they truly became a sheep for a time and then turned back into a dog and a pig or were they actually a dog and pig the entire time?

apparently the roman catholic would argue for the former, that they were truly and fully a sheep for a period and then lost it to return to what they used to be. they were a dog and pig, became a sheep for a while, and then a dog and pig again. this is pure poppy-cock!!

the reality is that they started out a dog and pig then put on some sheeps clothing for a while and washed off the filth for a bit, and when they were finished, they went back to eating their own vomit and playing in the mud pen again. at no time did they stop being a dog and pig. at no time did they actually become a sheep.

the Scripture is unequivocal that the tree is known by its fruit and that the actions are what demonstrate the reality. in other words, the fruit does not make the tree alive (does not produce and sustain the life of the tree) and the actions are not what make the reality (performing works does not produce and maintain status). the following verses make this abundantly clear:

Mt 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing [i.e., they are not really sheep], but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

the inescapable truth is that those who deceive, never really were who they said that they were--period. there is no amount of Scripture twisting that one can do here. the Scripture is clear. i believe that peter is merely echoing the words of his Master. and His Master did not mince words or indicate that these false prophets and teachers were ever recipients of God's mercy and grace...not even for a moment.

for they thought they knew Him and they knew the commandments which were delivered (and there for everyone to see and know), but He never knew them. that is what is missing for those in 2 Pe 2. they knew stuff, but Christ did not know them. Christ did not atone for and forgive their sins. those who are given to the Son will never be lost by the Son; and not only will they not be lost but all those given will be raised to glory on the last day:

Mt 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

[disciple]

When the NT speaks of a purchase price for our redemption, it has to be a price that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. Yet he owned the saved in every sense even before Christ paid this price! The event of the atonement only SEALED IN THE VAULT (humanly speaking) the purchase price that God had determined from eternity to owe to himself.yes but can this owning via creation be referred to as a buying? if so, where do we find this language so applied? deut 32:6 seems to be referring to two things: redeeming from egypt and creating/founding a nation. nothing here indicates that we could say that God bought the other nations in any sense, ever.


My problem with the 'hypothetical' view of 2 Pet. 2:1 is the same as my problem with any view of 'hypothetical' redemption buttressed by any passage. There is no such thing in the NT as a redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate, a purchase price that does not secure actual deliverance, a justification that does not guarantee eternal salvation (ala hyper-Fullerism), etc. This type of thinking and language is foreign to the New Testament.

So that is where I stand.but i don't know anyone here that is advocating a hypothetical redemption. the redemption from the defilements of the world is actual, though temporary for these individuals. they escape these things, but only for a while. then they return to their true status for they can only pretend for so long.

and the irony is that they do not have what they claim. if their claims were true, then they would be submitting to the one who they claim as their Master. as it is, they are self-appointed slaves, who were never bought out of slavery by the atonement of Christ but were only bought out of the external defilements of the world. as it says:

2 Pe 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

their escaping in no sense encompassed freedom from the slavery of sin, forgiveness of sins, being known by Christ, becoming a sheep, being adopted by God, being justified by God, owning/having Christ, having new life/heart/mind, having peace with God, or the like. it only involved an escaping of the defilements of the world (this sounds like teachers of legalism if you ask me). escaping from the defilements of the world is not eternal justification/salvation. this does not make one right/just/acceptable before a holy God. God does not accept people just because they have a temporary freedom from worldly defilements. if this were so, then He should have accepted the pharisees for they were the epitome of escaping the defilements of the world. but as it is, Christ called them snakes and hypocrites for He knew the reality of their hearts and lives.

[GraceAmbassador]

to me it is plain that there will be always be imposters and deceivers among us who claim to be what they are not. but their end will demonstrate the reality of their profession. i believe they had only knowledge (devoid of life) because they had been delivered the commandments. this knowledge was no different than the knowledge of those that bill mentioned in Phil 1:15-18 as well as simon magus (acts 8:13ff), those mentioned by jesus in Mt 7:15-29, the seeds in Mt 13:20-21 (Mk 4:5-6, 16-17; Lk 8:13), the demons (jas 2:9), and others.

2 Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world (this defines the "redemption" or what "the buying" is) 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. 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 handed on 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."

so what is the result? are we to assume that they truly became a sheep for a time and then turned back into a dog and a pig or were they actually a dog and pig the entire time?

apparently the roman catholic would argue for the former, that they were truly and fully a sheep for a period and then lost it to return to what they used to be. they were a dog and pig, became a sheep for a while, and then a dog and pig again. this is pure poppy-cock!!

the reality is that they started out a dog and pig then put on some sheeps clothing for a while and washed off the filth for a bit, and when they were finished, they went back to eating their own vomit and playing in the mud pen again. at no time did they stop being a dog and pig. at no time did they actually become a sheep.

the Scripture is unequivocal that the tree is known by its fruit and that the actions are what demonstrate the reality. in other words, the fruit does not make the tree alive (does not produce and sustain the life of the tree) and the actions are not what make the reality (performing works does not produce and maintain status). the following verses make this abundantly clear:

Mt 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing [i.e., they are not really sheep], but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

the inescapable truth is that those who deceive, never really were who they said that they were--period. there is no amount of Scripture twisting that one can do here. the Scripture is clear. i believe that peter is merely echoing the words of his Master. and His Master did not mince words or indicate that these false prophets and teachers were ever recipients of God's mercy and grace...not even for a moment.

for they thought they knew Him and they knew the commandments which were delivered (and there for everyone to see and know), but He never knew them. that is what is missing for those in 2 Pe 2. they knew stuff, but Christ did not know them. Christ did not atone for and forgive their sins. those who are given to the Son will never be lost by the Son; and not only will they not be lost but all those given will be raised to glory on the last day:

Mt 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
Thanks Doug!

I guess your posting of the scriptures above in a way reinforces the point I made to B.T. when suggesting to him that

"What will ultimately break any argument in favor of universal atonement which is what Arminians both in the RCC and in the A.G. camp want to present, is Biblical context, and some minimal harmonization of Apostolic teaching, and more importantly, as you pointed out the understanding that some words in the Bible are definetly not synonyms to Eternal, Irreversable and Unchangeable Salvation although they appear to be so, such as in the case of "elightenment and knowing."

There will never be a substitute for good biblical harmony! We have a self sufficient book which answers itself fully to any doubter that questions its integrity or tries to distort its message!

Milt

[swarm_mom]

B.T., W.B. and Disciple:

This is the context of 2 Peter 2:1, all the way up to verse 20:



20 ?For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.? 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.? 22 ?But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.?

[/url][url="http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=24276#_ftnref1"] (http://www.predestinarian.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=24276#_ftn1)The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

How can we reconcile these verses when debating an Arminian, and say that verse 1 really does not mean "bought" in a salvific sense?

Because it is not dealing with people that were saved.

This addresses the unregenerate within the visible church .
The hear the gospel, they know the truth intellectually yet they reject it.

Scripture indicates there will be varying punishments. I suspect that those that have heard and rejected will have a stiff punishment.

IMO 2Peter is written to the elect. It is both a warning and an assurance .

2 Peter 3 treats the 1st Judgment and points to the 2nd .

This scripture is consistent with the theme of judgment of the unsaved .

[r4mdh2o]

Amen to that Milt!

[Robert R. Higby]

Doug states:

but i don't know anyone here that is advocating a hypothetical redemption. the redemption from the defilements of the world is actual, though temporary for these individuals. they escape these things, but only for a while. then they return to their true status for they can only pretend for so long.

Well, if that is what the 'buying' (i.e. deliverance, redemption) stands for then we are in agreement. What I am denying is that the passage teaches a hypothetical redemption by the purchase price of the blood of Christ.

The deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the deliverance of these men in 2 Pet. 2:1 from the outward corruptions of this world are parallel. I think we are all starting to agree on that! I see a connection between this and creation because in all the OT--creation and the exodus are paralleled. But it is not necessary that we agree on the implications of this for 2 Pet. 2:1.

I'm sorry, brethren, for my lack of participation as of late. I'm still dealing with a very annoying issue of my cable broadband being out of service all the time. I'm posting tonight with dial-up. I hope to be back in full participation once I get this problem out of the way!