2 Peter 2:20

led · Post by **led** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:10 pm

2 Peter 2:
19 They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves to sin and corruption. For you are a slave to whatever controls you. 20 And when people escape from the wicked ways of the world by learning about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up with sin and become its slave again, they are worse off than before. 21 It would be better if they had never known the right way to live than to know it and then reject the holy commandments that were given to them.

I'm just wondering how others view this. I know what I think but would like to know what others get out of it.

What does vs.20 mean to you and how do you view it?

Iggy · Post by **Iggy** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:02 am

i think it means when... like say there's someone who was a drug addict or something who "finds God" and "cleans his life up"... then 6 months later is back doing it again versus a person who's a drug addict who never found God. The first guy realized he was doing something wrong, yet went back to that kind of life. the 2nd guy, however, never really knew that he was doing wrong against God... so i guess ignorance is bliss in this case.

LowlyOne · Post by **LowlyOne** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:14 am

I am not sure which translation you used, but do you think there is a difference between "learning about" and "knowing personally"?

LowlyOne

led · Post by **led** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:44 pm

It's NLT

I'll give 2 more. They all say the same thing in that regard.

NKJV - vs.20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

NAS - vs.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.

What does "escaped the wicked ways/pollutions/defilements of the world" mean? Can one escape the defilements of the world and not be saved?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:19 pm

It means that if a person comes to know Jesus . . . he has been saved and has begun the discipleship process . . . and now falls back into old sin, his state is now worse than it was as an unbeliever in that same sin. Consider Hebrews 12:6 - For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives. The word "scourge" here is a very, very harsh word. The severity is hard to exagerate. The believer who falls into sin will be severely disciplined by God. The same is not true for the unbeliever.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:11 pm

Jac wrote:It means that if a person comes to know Jesus . . . he has been saved and has begun the discipleship process . . . and now falls back into old sin, his state is now worse than it was as an unbeliever in that same sin. Consider Hebrews 12:6 - For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives. The word "scourge" here is a very, very harsh word. The severity is hard to exagerate. The believer who falls into sin will be severely disciplined by God. The same is not true for the unbeliever.

Why does the believer need to be punished for their sin; did not Christ take upon himself the full payment of our sins in dying once for all? (1 Peter 3:18; Colossians 2:9-12) If Christ died for all our sin, so that we are now forgiven by grace rather than punished by justice, then those who hold onto Christ's promise can not recieve punishment for their sin (which according to Scripture is death—Romans 6:23). Thus, if a believer is saved from death and given eternal life, that believer has no sin to be paid for.

Now if we are still to receive consequences for some sin, then maybe we should all fear this scourging as I don't see anyone who does not continue falling into sin, believer or non. It seems it may be better to be a non-believer than a believer if the scourging is worse than hell.

These are just some thoughts which come to my mind while reading over your words. I really can't help but feel such an explanation is even perhaps heretical, making a mockery out of Christ's redemptive act and God's grace (albeit I still accept you in Christ).

Kurieuo

Iggy · Post by **Iggy** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:44 am

Kurieuo wrote:Why does the believer need to be punished for their sin; did not Christ take upon himself the full payment of our sins in dying once for all?

because just cuz we're givin the gift, doesnt me everyone has to accept it.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:29 am

Iggy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Why does the believer need to be punished for their sin; did not Christ take upon himself the full payment of our sins in dying once for all?
because just cuz we're givin the gift, doesnt me everyone has to accept it.

Yet, it is acknowledged in 2 Peter 2:19-21 the person worse off than before is one who had accepted the gift and been freed through learning and believing in Christ.

Kurieuo

led · Post by **led** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:08 am

So then we all agree that the person becomes saved and then falls back into a sinful defeated life is worse off then an unbeliever.

what does it mean when God says that it would have been better to be an unbeliever and not be saved at all?

Is there a punishment worse then what an unbeliever would get?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:13 am

Kurieuo wrote:Why does the believer need to be punished for their sin; did not Christ take upon himself the full payment of our sins in dying once for all? (1 Peter 3:18; Colossians 2:9-12) If Christ died for all our sin, so that we are now forgiven by grace rather than punished by justice, then those who hold onto Christ's promise can not recieve punishment for their sin (which according to Scripture is death—Romans 6:23). Thus, if a believer is saved from death and given eternal life, that believer has no sin to be paid for.

The fact that our sins have been forgiven for in an absolute sense means that we will not suffer for them in an eternal sense. This in no way means that we will not suffer for them in a temporal sense. No sin will be counted against a person at the Bema Seat, or even at the Great White Throne Judgment. The issue in these final, eschatological judgments will be the merits of our works. Because Christ has paid the price for sin, there can be no condemnation.

However, the moment we receive Christ, we become, for the first time, God's children. Not all men are such. All are God's creation; not all are God's children. The fact that God disciplines His children is so well attested to in Scripture I am suprised that anyone would object! What do you think is the purpose of church discipline? Or what about the letters to the seven churches? Did Jesus not say that if these people continued in sin that He would put out their candle? John spoke of the sin unto death, and this in reference to Scripture. The previously noted Hebrews passage clearly says that God disciplines His children. He scourges them. Those are not my words, K. They are God's.

Kurieuo wrote:Now if we are still to receive consequences for some sin, then maybe we should all fear this scourging as I don't see anyone who does not continue falling into sin, believer or non. It seems it may be better to be a non-believer than a believer if the scourging is worse than hell.

Only Christians should fear this scourging. I fear it. So should you. Thus, we are exhorted by Paul to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. However, non-Christians do not have to fear this. What they have to fear is another catagory entirely, namely, wrath. God punishes sin in this life, both believer and non. However, each group has a different type of punishment to worry about, albeit on the surface they may appear to be the same. God destroys the wicked; he disciplines the righteous.

Kurieuo wrote:These are just some thoughts which come to my mind while reading over your words. I really can't help but feel such an explanation is even perhaps heretical, making a mockery out of Christ's redemptive act and God's grace (albeit I still accept you in Christ).

You should be careful with this kind of lange, K. There is very little difference between saying someone's "explanation is perhaps heretical," and saying "that belief is heretical." And there is no practical difference in saying "that belief is heretical" and "the person who holds that belief is a heretic." If you are going to lay such a serious charge, then lay it openly.

You should also consider your words more carefully with reference to my understanding of Christ's redemptive act and God's grace. What what considers "mockery" or foolishness, another considers the very essense of the Gospel. I know your understanding of salvation, as we've had the discussion in depth. The charge can run either way. As I've said before, editorial comments do not help discussion.

Finally, you should be extremely careful with phrases like "I still accept you in Christ." I think I understand your intent, but this mind-boggingly patronizing. You would put yourself on a level where you can accept a heretic, because, after all, he may be very wrong, but he' still saved, God bless him. Needless to say, it doesn't matter one iota whether I accept you or if you accept me.

Again, I believe I've known you long enough that I understand the tone you wished to convey, but the entire last paragraph was extremely uncalled for. As a matter of suggestion, you may want to avoid that kind of rhetoric. I learned that myself the hard way.

God bless

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:18 am

led wrote:So then we all agree that the person becomes saved and then falls back into a sinful defeated life is worse off then an unbeliever.

what does it mean when God says that it would have been better to be an unbeliever and not be saved at all?

Is there a punishment worse then what an unbeliever would get?

As I said, led . . . the believer will fall into a level of punishment undreamed of by the unbeliever. A non-Christian can live in sin and, for the most part, get away with it. Sinners act like sinners because they are sinners. I don't expect any more, and God certainly doesn't expect any more.

However, children of God have been granted a new nature, and they are commanded to abide by it. Therefore, the child of God who falls back into such a life will undergo the scourging of God. This scourging is, of course, to bring us to repentence, that our fellowship may be restored. It is not punative so much as is it restorative. However, if that scourging goes unrecognized and ignored, a person is dangerously close of the sin unto death, in which the believer is turned over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.

Do any of these disciplinary issues have any relation to the final judgment of Christians? The answer is no. They are indirectly related in that every day we live in sin is a day that we have lost to live for Christ, and thus, a lost day to lay up our treasures in Heaven. However, we will not suffer for these particular sins on Judgment Day. Christ took care of that for us already.

God bless

led · Post by **led** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:15 am

Jac3510 wrote:Only Christians should fear this scourging. I fear it. So should you. Thus, we are exhorted by Paul to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. However, non-Christians do not have to fear this. What they have to fear is another catagory entirely, namely, wrath.

What I gather from this is that it is better to face the wrath of God as a non-Christian then to face the scourging of God as a Christian who fell back into a sinful defeated life.

To conclude, you are says that hell is not as bad as being scourged from God.

is that correct?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:04 am

Temporally speaking, it is better to face the wrath of God than it is to face the scourging of God. The simple reason is that not all unbelievers suffer God's wrath in the strictest sense. However, all believers who fall into sin suffer God's scouging. I've asked this before: if God will not allow His name to be mocked by His enemies, how much less will He allow it to be mocked by His children?

I don't believe the concept of Hell is found in 2 Pet. 2:20. Peter is saying that it is better to be an unbeliever living in sin than to be a believer living in sin. That's about as simple as I can make it

edit: for the record, as I understand things, wrath <> Hell. Some hold that they are the same. I don't, but either position can be well defended, I think. I see wrath as a purely temporal thing. So when I say that unbelievers fall to God's wrath, I am speaking just as temporally as when I say that sinning believers fall to God's discipline. Again, Hell is totally left out of the equation.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:33 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Temporally speaking, it is better to face the wrath of God than it is to face the scourging of God. The simple reason is that not all unbelievers suffer God's wrath in the strictest sense. However, all believers who fall into sin suffer God's scouging. I've asked this before: if God will not allow His name to be mocked by His enemies, how much less will He allow it to be mocked by His children?

I don't believe the concept of Hell is found in 2 Pet. 2:20. Peter is saying that it is better to be an unbeliever living in sin than to be a believer living in sin. That's about as simple as I can make it

edit: for the record, as I understand things, wrath <> Hell. Some hold that they are the same. I don't, but either position can be well defended, I think. I see wrath as a purely temporal thing. So when I say that unbelievers fall to God's wrath, I am speaking just as temporally as when I say that sinning believers fall to God's discipline. Again, Hell is totally left out of the equation.

I don't know how you can say hell is totaly left out of the equation Jac. (oh no! deja vu all over again).

I agree that what Peter is saying is as simple as it is better to be an unbeliever living in sin than to be a believer living in sin. But what are the consequences? The consequences for an unbeliever living in sin is hell. Peter's saying the believer's fate living in sin is worse. I can't imagine there's anything worse than hell (having been shown the path away from it). It is rather simple.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:44 pm

Rather than doing an extended exegesis of the passage, which would require us starting in verse 1 and working through the end of the chapter, let me just refer you to the following article. It is relatively short. You should be able to get through it in less than five minutes. It's not exhaustive or very technical, but it does a good job laying the groundwork for what I would consider to be the proper understanding of this passage.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88may2.html

God bless