The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A Four Point Calvinist

1. But there were. As weak consciences are usually very grievously and dangerously shaken, when false teachers arise, who either corrupt or mutilate the doctrine of faith, it was necessary for the Apostle, while seeking to encourage the faithful to persevere, to remove out of the way an offense of this kind. He, moreover, comforted those to whom he was writing, and confirmed them by this argument, that God has always tried and proved his Church by such a temptation as this, in order that novelty might not disturb their hearts. "Not different," he says, "will be the condition of the Church under the gospel, from what it was formerly under the law; false prophets disturbed the ancient Church; the same thing must also be expected by us."



It was necessary expressly to shew this, because many imagined that the Church would enjoy tranquillity under the rein of Christ; for as the prophets had promised that at his coming there would be real peace, the highest degree of heavenly wisdom, and the full restoration of all things, they thought that the Church would be no more exposed to any contests. Let us then remember that the Spirit of God hath once for all declared, that the Church shall never be free from this intestine evil; and let this likeness be always borne in mind, that the trial of our faith is to be similar to that of the fathers, and for the same reason— that in this way it may be made evident, whether we really love God, as we find it written in De 13:3.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them.

Peter really does appear to be saying that the false prophets have been redeemed or bought by Jesus even though they are denying him. I have found no simple explanation that makes clear sense (although other passages make Limited Atonement very clear) therefore, I know what it is not saying from the rest of scripture. Peter cannot be teaching Universal Atonement.

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1 NKJ)

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6 NKJ)

`Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'" (Matthew 13:30 NKJ)

The knot of the question is in the word, fall away. Whosoever then understands its meaning, can easily extricate himself from every difficulty. But it must be noticed, that there is a twofold falling away, one particular, and the other general. He who has in anything, or in any ways offended, has fallen away from his state as a Christian; therefore all sins are so many fallings. But the Apostle speaks not here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; but he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner offends not God in some one thing, but entirely renounces his grace.



And that this may be better understood, let us suppose a contrast between the gifts of God, which he has mentioned, and this falling away. For he falls away who forsakes the word of God, who extinguishes its light, who deprives himself of the taste of the heavens or gift, who relinquishes the participation of the Spirit. Now this is wholly to renounce God. We now see whom he excluded from the hope of pardon, even the apostates who alienated themselves from the Gospel of Christ, which they had previously embraced, and from the grace of God; and this happens to no one but to him who sins against the Holy Spirit. For he who violates the second table of the Law, or transgresses the first through ignorance, is not guilty of this defection; nor does God surely deprive any of his grace in such a way as to leave them none remaining except the reprobate.

3. Their idea that the truth cannot remain in the Church unless it exist among pastors, and that the Church herself cannot exist unless displayed in general councils, is very far from holding true if the prophets have left us a correct description of their own times. In the time of Isaiah there was a Church at Jerusalem which the Lord had not yet abandoned. But of pastors he thus speaks: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way” ( [Isa. 56:10, 11] ). In the same way Hosea says, “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God” ( [Hosea 9:8] ). Here, by ironically connecting them with God, he shows that the pretext of the priesthood was vain. There was also a Church in the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of pastors: “From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.” Again, “The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them” ( [Jer. 6:13] ; 14:14). And not to be prolix with quotations, read the whole of his thirty-third and fortieth chapters. Then, on the other hand, Ezekiel inveighs against them in no milder terms. “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls.” “Her priests have violated my law, and profaned mine holy things” ( [Ezek. 22:25, 26] ). There is more to the same purpose. Similar complaints abound throughout the prophets; nothing is of more frequent recurrence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. But perhaps, though this great evil prevailed among the Jews, our age is exempt from it. Would that it were so; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. For Peter’s words are clear, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily will bring in damnable heresies” ( [2 Peter 2:1] ). See how he predicts impending danger, not from ordinary believers, but from those who should plume themselves on the name of pastors and teachers. Besides, how often did Christ and his apostles foretell that the greatest dangers with which the Church was threatened would come from pastors? ( [Mt. 24:11, 24] ). Nay, Paul openly declares, that Antichrist would have his seat in the temple of God ( [2 Thess. 2:4] ); thereby intimating, that the fearful calamity of which he was speaking would come only from those who should have their seat in the Church as pastors. And in another passage he shows that the introduction of this great evil was almost at hand. For in addressing the Elders of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” ( [Acts 20:29, 30] ). How great corruption might a long series of years introduce among pastors, when they could degenerate so much within so short a time? And not to fill my pages with details, we are reminded by the examples of almost every age, that the truth is not always cherished in the bosoms of pastors, and that the safety of the Church depends not on their state. It was becoming that those appointed to preserve the peace and safety of the Church should be its presidents and guardians; but it is one thing to perform what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform.

The explanation (although I do not necessarily believe it) may be as simple as this, they have indeed been bought, but this has not been revealed to them yet, they are speaking as unregenerate elect, from the perspective of unconverted false prophets, much like Saul who was not yet Paul. The destruction may be something in their here and now to bring them to their elect realization and to a place they no longer preach such heresies. To me that is a good an interpretation as any I have heard or read. I think this particular verse will always be left in an imperfect exegetical state for me. Thank you.... Michael

We know from using the Analogy of Faith, what Peter was NOT saying, i.e., Christ's atoning death was not designed for "all"; indiscriminately for every single individual. If that were the case, then one would be forced into a form of Amyraldianism; Christ actually paid the penalty for "all", thus satisfying the penalty due to them "all", but it is not made effective unless it is received by faith. Thus, the challenge is to determine in what sense "bought" is to be understood.

Lastly, although we would like to think that we can understand everything written in Scripture (some actually hold to this view tenaciously, saying that we can not only understand everything written but we can know it perfectly as God Himself knows it), we must humble ourselves and admit that this is not possible due to 1) some things written are hard to understand (2Pet 3:16), 2) our own intellectual inabilities, and 3) that we all labor under the noetic effects of the Fall.

I would like to know where Scripture is ever given the blanket term of "analogy" in the text itself? Since truth can only be stated in propositions, how is truth an "analogy" rather than a logical proposition? Was David the king of Israel, or is that merely an "analogy"?

Charlie,

You have a problem.....!!! You are so enamoured with Gordon Clark that you go off on tirades that have no bearing upon what is being discussed or in this particular case what I wrote, i.e., ONE PHRASE; "Analogy of Faith". Take a pill, will ya?

The phrase "Analogy of Faith" is a much used and recognized orthodox phrase which is synonymous with "comparing Scripture with Scripture". It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Van Til's description of scriptural writing being an "analogy". You would do well to READ what people write in CONTEXT and exercise some of the fruit of the Spirit which you should possess.

"Tirades" is purely propaganda since I am speaking purely in terms of logic.

The term "analogy of Scripture" is common in neo-orthodox circles. Although Aquinas did use the term, Aquinas' theology was rationalist. The Scriptures are propositional in nature, not "analogy". If Scripture is not a rational revelation in the verbal-plenary view of inspiration, then what you have is simply "inspired" myth and meaningless words.

Faith is believing and assenting to the knowledge revealed in Scripture.