A Summary of 2 Peter

Answering Protestants ^ | 25 September 2013 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

Let's take a look at 2 Peter.

Verses 1-4 start off chapter 1 with a nice salutation, in which the grace of God is emphasized.

Verses 5-11 inform us about the necessity of works, and they warn us against being "unfruitful," in reference to John 15:5-8, and other verses. The passage also reminds us that we were "purified" from our "former sins," most probably in reference to the regenerative effect of baptism.

Verses 12-15 point out that the purpose of this Book is mostly just to remind us of important things -- we "already know them" -- not really to add anything new.

Verses 16-19 remind us of the fact that Peter witnessed all of this first-hand, and he is not just retelling old mythical tales, so he knows what he's talking about.

The final verses (verses 20-21) read: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

This passage does two things. First, it reminds us that the Bible does not contradict itself on and is infallible on matters of faith and morals, because its writers, "moved by the Holy Spirit", "spoke from God." Second, the passage undermines individual interpretation, the cornerstone of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, implicitly reminding us of the necessity of being united under one set of doctrines.

Chapter 2 heavily warns against sin.

Verses 1-3, especially, remind me of the times we currently live in. Particularly, "[m]any will follow their sensuality" reminds me of society and debates around same-sex "marriage."

There is a lot of valuable material in this chapter. It informs us that we will be punished for sin that we do not repent of. Verse 13 tells us that we will "[suffer] wrong as the wages of doing wrong."

This is all completely contrary to the "Jesus died for all of our sins, so we're good!" view that many Protestants hold. Yes, it is through Christ that we can be cleansed from sin, but the cleansing is not automatic -- we must seek it.

Another interesting thing in the chapter is verse 20, which reads: "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."

This verse obliterates the Protestant idea -- held only by a minority, fortunately -- of "once saved, always saved." The people being referenced already had "knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and "escaped the defilements of the world", so they were supposedly "saved" at one point (at least, according to common Protestant doctrine), but then they lost their salvation after getting "entangled" in these "defilements of the world."

And the next verse -- verse 21 -- reads: "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."

This verse and the previous verse tie in with the Catholic idea of salvation through "invincible ignorance." Basically, anyone genuinely ignorant of Christian teaching can reach salvation. Like this verse says, for some people, "it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness."

The chapter closes with a proverb.

Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 3 again remind us of the fact that this Book is in continuity with the rest of the Bible, simply a reminder of important details.

Verses 3-9 touch on people doubting the eventual return of Christ. The passage tells us that the reason that it seems to be taking so long to occur is that Christ is trying to lead as many souls to salvation as possible before then.

And verses 10-18, the final verses, urge us to always "be in holy conduct and godliness" and "be diligent to be found by Him [God] in peace, spotless and blameless." The passage tells us that "the patience of our Lord" allows more people to attain salvation. It also tells us that there are "some things hard to understand" in Paul's writings (like supposed "faith alone" verses, perhaps?), "which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Feel free to check out my other videos and other past work. Like 2 Peter 3:18 tells us, we must "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." May God bless you.

(All verses are from the NASB translation.)

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

Click here to watch the accompanying video.

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

“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.

[boatbums]

My warning was about putting ones confidence in "imprimaturs" in general. SHeesh...doesn't take much to set you off does it? ARE you capable of discussing anything on a thread you open without resorting to the usual nastiness and hysteria?

[boatbums]

This sounds like a global warming paper being reviewed by global warming scientists.

Exactly! Much like the common RC myth that "they" only chose books to be included in the Bible that agreed with established church theology, making them the arbiters of what IS God-breathed sacred Scripture and not God, Himself, who establishes His word forever. The delusion is strong.

[boatbums]

Dartuser is NOT the one who appears “incredibly insecure with their own” doctrine of Scripture interpretation here. Just sayin’.

[Rashputin]

ROTFLOL

I learned what the Self Alone "Christian" crowd calls "Discussion" right here on FR from the very people you constantly agree with. For some strange reason, though, there are never little ditties about "nastiness" directed at you pals when they're the ones dishing it out.

If and when the people who wring their hands and blather about "nastiness" are just as hard on and concerned about their little pals they agree with and ping into threads being nasty I may start to consider what they say as something other than trash talk.

But that won't happen because the sweetie persona who is concerned about being nice is just another tactical persona who shows up when the nastiness of their pals is painfully obvious.

Sweetie then tries to direct attention away from the "Christ like kindness" and turning of the other cheek sweeties pals so routinely display for all to see.

have a nice day now, ya' hear?

[boatbums]

And after they just got done whining and moaning over all the “Catholic bashing” that goes on here and how they wish we could get away from that and be reconciled!

Hypocites must have broken all their mirrors. ;o)

[boatbums]

Perfecto!

[boatbums]

Not only is that really funny, it's a perfect example of how blind people who swallow the doctrine of Self and Self Alone Sacred Tradition become once that strong delusion leads them away from the Truth. People who go down that road make up something that suits them at the moment and when someone points out that one of their inventions contradicts their other inventions they can always call in their fellow hogs and to help bury any mention of the obvious the contractions in their Sola Yourselfa Roman Catholic Church inventions But, of course, Sola Yourselfa Roman Catholic Church Tradition folks make their own rules for everything, even rules for how to contradict direct quotes of Jesus Christ Himself or when to throw His Word in the garbage.

Hate to break it to ya, RP, but you just described the Roman Catholic Church!

[boatbums]

Kinda hard not to do when that’s all they got!

[boatbums]

Do you have the gift of “mind reading”? Didn’t think so. You also don’t have access to what gets discussed in private Freepmails, do you? Better to take care of your own doorstep before you try to sweep off others. A nice nun taught me that.

[Rashputin]

What absolutely sterling example someone being incapable of not altering everything to suit their Self !

Obviously the Self Alone habit of altering the writings of others suit their Self carries over into everything else as well.

Thank you so much for proving beyond a reasonable doubt my point regarding those who have faith in their Self and Self Alone being incapable of not altering anything and everything they don't agree with.

[Rashputin]

I seem to have missed similar comments to others here who have done far worse and who completely ignore the forum rules.

Could you point those posts out lest someone think the lack thereof is indicative of a duplicitioius and hypocritical nature?

[boatbums]

What’s wrong? You’ve never done the same to make a point? It’s a little unsettling, I’m sure, to see how easily ones diatribe towards others can be turned back on oneself to demonstrate ones blatant hypocrisy. I imagined you’d be used to it by now.

[Rashputin]

My goodness, how nasty !

What were those post numbers?

[Elsie]

Mary is dead.

[Elsie]

...Self and Self Alone ...

You sound as though you need a bit more fiber in your diet...

[BlueDragon]

I seem to have missed similar comments to others here who have done far worse and who completely ignore the forum rules.

What is that is be striven for here? That each freeper police others non-stop? And if they do not -- then they are as responsible for the words of others as they are (or at least should be) their own?

Could you point those posts out lest someone think the lack thereof is indicative of a duplicitioius and hypocritical nature?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3070281/posts?page=57#57

[smvoice]

Seems there is a little group of brownshirts forming around here. Some kind of vigilante force aimed to bring down hurt feelings to protect the perpetually offended. The WHAAAAmbulance chasers, who are sworn to do their duty to each other to report the offending parties to the RMs. Funny, if I didn't know better, I would swear they meet in private to go over just WHO is the target of the night.

[BlueDragon]

You can usually weed those out by checking reviews and especially by author, publication date, and so on. I've also found that such exceptions are rare being usually granted an Imprimatur by a Bishop you can recognize as being untrustworthy rather than just careless.

Oh...so you are agreeing with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3071013/posts?page=50#50

I'd be careful if I were you. Having an "Imprimatur" is not much of a guarantee that something is "authoritative" or even "official".

But no need to type out again (or even copy/paste) repeat the diatribe against the [ahem] Self Alone "crowd". Doing so would take time away from the necessary "weeding out" and otherwise general checking up on and careful weighing of factors to determine who among RC bishops should be (in your own view) recognized as being untrustworthy rather than just careless.

Here come da' judge, here come da' judge

Can I haz? ask and ye shall receive!

[Rashputin]

In non-Catholic works error is the rule, not the exception.

That should clear it up for ya'.

[boatbums]

Thanks for the assist! I noticed that the poster was using words that implied he was "checking reviews", "weed(ed) those out", "found" out and various uses of ...dare I say it...INTERPRETING the words written in official documents and using PERSONAL recognition methods before accepting even works that HAVE imprimaturs. Yet, how easily the "self-alone" accusations fly out so frequently that the diatribe has lost any semblance of veracity and relevance. What seems lost - though I doubt it really is - is that EVERYONE uses some form or other of thinking for themselves on material they hear or read. Isn't that what God gave us brains to do and said, "Come and let us reason TOGETHER"? Are they the only ones allowed to do it?

Truth is truth whether one believes it or not. That's why the truth revealed in Holy Scripture is plain and, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, convicting to the heart that seeks to know it. Jesus said seek and you WILL find - I think what is found leaves little open to personal interpretation. Words in context mean what they say.

Have a good weekend.