How do we know

[Canuckster1127]

I hope that I never become so consistent with my theology that that becomes the measure of it.

Theology by definition is man's understanding of God. God by definition supercedes anything I can fully understand.

So, if internal consistency is the final measure, then I will be limiting God to the measures of my understanding and interpretation.

The opposite extreme is also undesireable.

[Jac3510]

Are you suggesting that one's theology does not need to be self-consistent, Canuckster?

I wouldn't think so, yet I'm not sure if your last response was an objection to my concerns or not. I was only pointing out that self-contradictory theologies need to be resolved so that they are no longer self-contradictory if we have any hope at all of holding to a true theological position. With that, I am sure you agree. And in light of that, I'm sure you understand my concern when I see someone making two seemingly self-contradictory statements. Such a person either has an underlying reason for maknig both statements, rendering them compatible, or has not realized that his statements are contraries. If the former, then we all would benefit from an explanation. And if the latter, then he would benefit in having it pointed out (gently, I hope), so that he could either harmonize the two statements or abandon one (or both!).

[Canuckster1127]

Are you suggesting that one's theology does not need to be self-consistent, Canuckster?

I wouldn't think so, yet I'm not sure if your last response was an objection to my concerns or not. I was only pointing out that self-contradictory theologies need to be resolved so that they are no longer self-contradictory if we have any hope at all of holding to a true theological position. With that, I am sure you agree. And in light of that, I'm sure you understand my concern when I see someone making two seemingly self-contradictory statements. Such a person either has an underlying reason for maknig both statements, rendering them compatible, or has not realized that his statements are contraries. If the former, then we all would benefit from an explanation. And if the latter, then he would benefit in having it pointed out (gently, I hope), so that he could either harmonize the two statements or abandon one (or both!).

I think I was clear with regard to what I said.

How would you for example, harmonize a statement that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human? That is self-contradictory, yet it is by definition orthodox theology. So, internal consistency in that regard is not the measure of truth. Neither statement should be abandoned. The basis of the statements should be examined however to see if they are consistent with, in this case, the Bible.

The issue then is not always internal logical consistency. The issue for us as humans includes recognizing that there is not only that which is irrational or rational, but there is also that which is suprarational which reconciles within those attributes of God that are immutable and which by definition we can neither fully experience or grasp.

[waynebo]

Earlier, I mentioned that a person willfully sinning after claiming to be saved would be a mockery of the Spirit. I think motive is important in looking at sinful behavior. I could very easily see a saved person stealing food if they're starving; there is a natural purpose to it and the motivation is survival, not causing harm. Whereas a person raping and murdering is doing it for other reasons. It would be hard to believe that Jesus is in that person or that the Spirit is in them or guiding them. I knew there was a verse concerning this but could not remember it at the time. I simply don't have that kind of memory. But the verse is:

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (Gal 6:7-8). Interestingly, it doesn't say here that if we live to please our sinful nature we will have fewer rewards in heaven, it says we will reap destruction.

Concerning whether this debate is vain or not, I mean it in practical terms. I couldn't think of one example of how knowing if someone is saved or not - as opposed to God only knowing - would change the way I relate to them in my everyday life. As Christians we are to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing, and we are called to help each other not to sin (even if it means turning them out of the church) and to turn to God's will and commands (we're even to encourage them to get a job! 2 Thess 11-13). So biblically, we are to be discerning, but not judgmental regarding salvation. In practical terms, if a guy that has committed sexual assaults came to me and claimed he was saved and wanted to date my daughter, I would say "no." Perhaps after time passed and I could observe that the Lord changed him, I would change my mind. There are all kinds of lesser practical things like that too.

I do believe that (1) once you are saved you are always saved, that (2) only God knows for sure, and (3) that through sanctification your behavior will change (sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly) and that this will be obvious to at least some people. I think if a person continues to do evil or heinous things, or continues to worship other gods after claiming to be saved, then we would rightfully be wary of that person.

How does Jac's position differ from this, I wonder, and what does the heresy espouse?

So if a person willfully sinned 1 time hes doomed to the lake of fire,no repentance for them,they lose their salvation?
But we as the children of God are told to forgive a person that repents to us for their tresspasses.
Doesn't seem that we are forgiven but we are to forgive?

[Jac3510]

Canuckster,

You actually believe that it is logically incosistent to say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man? It's hardly philosophicaly inconsistent . . .

But let's just, for the sake of argument, say that you are right. Let's say that you have pointed to a genuine theological contradiction in Scripture. And you want us to let it slide because both are consistent with the Bible? So you then agree that the Bible is self-contradictory, but you are OK with that, because we can't comprehend God?

In that case, why bother trying to reconcile any seemingly contradictory passages? There are some that seem to teach salvation by works, and others that blatantly deny it. Some that say bluntly we are no longer under the Law, and others that imply we are. Yet, why reconcile them? Why not just say we are saved by faith alone AND saved by works, and if someone points out that it is a contradiction, simply sigh and say that they don't understand God?

This may be off topic, and I'm hardly an authority, but, personally, I absolutely reject any theology that contradicts itself as necessarily false. Truth cannot be self-contradictory. Further, I reject any theology that would have me believe that the Bible can contradict itself and still be true. Again, truth cannot contradict itself.

[Canuckster1127]

Canuckster,

You actually believe that it is logically incosistent to say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man? It's hardly philosophicaly inconsistent . . .

But let's just, for the sake of argument, say that you are right. Let's say that you have pointed to a genuine theological contradiction in Scripture. And you want us to let it slide because both are consistent with the Bible? So you then agree that the Bible is self-contradictory, but you are OK with that, because we can't comprehend God?

In that case, why bother trying to reconcile any seemingly contradictory passages? There are some that seem to teach salvation by works, and others that blatantly deny it. Some that say bluntly we are no longer under the Law, and others that imply we are. Yet, why reconcile them? Why not just say we are saved by faith alone AND saved by works, and if someone points out that it is a contradiction, simply sigh and say that they don't understand God?

This may be off topic, and I'm hardly an authority, but, personally, I absolutely reject any theology that contradicts itself as necessarily false. Truth cannot be self-contradictory. Further, I reject any theology that would have me believe that the Bible can contradict itself and still be true. Again, truth cannot contradict itself.

Theology that contradicts itself on what basis? Truth cannot be self-contradictory, however, if the measure of truth is our understanding and what we can reconcile then we are by definition limiting truth to what we understand arent we, if we exclude that which is supra-natural and beyond our human comprehension?

I've been around that mulberry bush quite a bit. I think when we try to come to God and build a completely rational "internally consistent" theology then we in fact elevate our framework, above God Himself, and fail to allow for those things, like the hypostatic union I appealed to earlier, although I could have appealed to the Trinity as well, which I believe and yet which is not, humanly speaking, fully possible or internally consistent from the premise of that which we can understand and render non-contradictory.

I haven't suggested that we are saved by works, nor do I believe that. I'm simply raising up a level and suggesting that if the basis of truth you're establishing, as I saw it anyway, is limited to only that which is internally consistent; if you're failing to recognize that there are apparent contradictions which, as I've phrased it are not irrational, but rather supra-rational in understanding God, then you're imposing a limitation within your theology that doesn't reflect the nature of God.

Seems to me then that the appeal ought to be more upon the premises of what you're attempting to refute, than simply an appeal to internal consistency when it applies to some of these things.

[B. W.]

Aw cslewislover,

I never intended to hurt your feelings and that makes me I did

Byblos is right, I just want to sit back and watch this time around so please keep posting!


-
-
-

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

To FL, Byblo's answers have been my own. He knows my position very well. If you believe that a person's sin can prove that they weren't REALLY saved, then I'd have to ask on what basis a new convert can believed that they are saved. Earlier, you rightly pointed to belief, but what happens if a person falls into such willful sin, as happens on a sadly regular basis? If you then turn around and say that such a person did not really believe, then on what basis can you tell the new convert that they can be sure that they really did believe, and thus, are really saved?

Put it this way:

1. Those who have truly believed are saved;
2. I have truly believed;
3. Therefore, I am saved.

This is correct and sounds sure. However, how do you know if (1) is true if you will turn around and deny (1) on the basis of works (or lackthereof)? In fact, you can have no assurance unless you look to your works. Thus, my original question.

I may not be expressing myself very well. Perhaps this is why you - Jac - keep misunderstanding. So let me state as succinctly as possible what I think is true:

1. Once saved always saved.
2. Works are not required.
3. Works are the fruit of a saved person.
4. All saved people continue to sin, some through self-righteousness, some badly; murder, adultery & rape could be done by a saved person. These won't affect the person's salvation.

I can't determine whether another person is saved or not, for who am I to judge another man's servant?...to his own master he will stand or fall (I read that somewhere!)

So, «On what basis can a new convert believe they are saved?» you asked. Abram believed God and he credited to him as righteousness (Ge 15:6) is the simple answer. Simple belief in God, recognition that Jesus is Lord of one's life. Nothing else is required.

However (!) as each person is different, and come to the faith carrying different idols, that simple answer is not enough for many. That is why I suggested looking at works (for those carrying the idol of worry) because most Christians will bear fruit.

FL

[Jac3510]

Canuckster,

You and I just have a fundamental disagreement here. To require that all theological statements be consistent with one another is not to elevate them higher than God, for God is not self-conflicting. Not even God can break the law of noncontradiction for the simple reason that it is rooted in His own nature. Can He both be and not be simultaneously? Of course not, and thus, the rationality of reality eminates from God Himself. Beyond that, the fact that you believe the hypostatic union and the Trinity itself to be internally self-contradictory is downright shocking. It is extremely easy to reconcile all the premises in each of those doctrines on a purely rational level. There is NOTHING self-conflicting about them. In any case, that's not the point of my questions to FL, and I've gone further here than I first intended, so I'll let this drop. You can have the last word.

FL,

I am in no way misunderstanding your position. I understood it fully from your first post, which is the reason I questioned it. I am not making my questions clear to you.

If you believe that peopel will do good works if they've believed, then you can have no assurance of your salvation. The simple reason is the same as that which Byblos suggested. What happens if a man falls away totally and lives in blatent sin? You argue he simply proves he never truly believed in the first place. Fine. Then what hope do YOU have that even you have truly believed? If such a man as that deceived himself, are you arrogant enough to believe that you could not have fallen to the same delusion? Whatever assurance you can claim for yourself, such a man could well have claimed for himself in his self-deceived state. That is, after all, the problem with being deceived: you don't know you are deceived!

If, then, a man must look to his works to prove he has really believed on the basis that a man who has really believed will produce works, then you have a works based assurance, which is, as you well know, no assurance whatsoever. And in this, you, Calvinists, Arminians, and Catholics can all rejoice that you all completely agree in this area. For you all believe, together, that if a man lives in sin, then he has no basis for assurance, and that his living in sin will find him in Hell. Though you all take different routes to get their, your end theology is the same. The only way a man can be assured of his salvation is if he looks to his own life and sees works being produced in him. In your case, it is because it is the evidence that he has really believed.

That, my friend, is simply not consistent with OSAS. Byblos recognized that a long time ago, and since he spoke so perfectly for me, allow me to try to do half the job and speak at least somewhat for him: he would be more than willing to take you into the fold! Indeed, you have the same theology in that regard. But you certainly don't hold to the logical conclusion of OSAS.

As I stated with Canuckster, this has gone further than I intended. You can have the last word. I'm not interested in debate, again, so much as I wanted to point to the issue of internal consistency. To that degree, I've said my peace, and it's between you and God.

God bless

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

I'm not threatened by your shock over my statements and I'm not threatened or unwilling to pursue them further with a willingness on my part to learn and change where necessary. I don't have it all figured out, and the older and more experienced I become in addressing these matters the less figured out I find I have some things.

It appears to me, based upon what you're feeding back that you're threatened or confused by my statements and assuming or projecting more upon them than what I'm saying.

It appears to me that it's not enough that someone accept mysteries such as the Trinity and the Hypostatic union, but rather you want to reduce them to explanations that meet your capabilities to create internally consistent, logical, and fully rational explanations. It appears to me, that perhaps you've embraced those explanations as the equivilent of God Himself.

Why is it necessary to reduce God to something you can put completely in a box in that manner? Do you really believe that there are not immutable elements to God that resolve in a manner that are beyond our ability to resolve intellectually?

Consider this, and you and I are friends and have engaged on things in the past as brothers so I know we're capable of it, but are you perhaps attempting to bring the same type of intellectual approach toward the Bible and God's revelation of the Living Word of Jesus Christ that materialists bring toward the physical universe in building a rigid approach that will not allow anything beyond that which can be observed and fully explained? Where is the mystery and the need for faith in that scenario?

Mathmatically and rationally the hypostatic union, since I appealed to that at first, is not fully understandable and reducable to a purely rational reduction of logic, based upon the powers and abilities of man to observe and explain. Nor would we have the ability to arrive at and accept that truth, without the direct intervention and revelation of God. Granted we can build some better understandings and I'm in full agreement with the premises of this board that advances in Science and understanding can in many way provide additional pegs for us to hang our faith on to know that God is consistent. Quantum physics and the like appears to me to be demonstrating that the closer we get to what we believe to be the starting point of the universe.

Logic involves more than internal consistency or the technical term for it which is "validity". It also requires the premises upon which it is based to be true. Frankly, there are things within the Hypostatic union and the Trinity for that manner that cannot be fully rendered internally consistent without accepting underlying premises that rationally, in the context of our perspective and ability to understand cannot be completely explained to a skeptic's satisfaction and a human perspective appears self-contradictory. That's where faith enters in and there's also a far deeper and more satisfying relationship that God wants to have with us that goes beyond.

Is your faith in the person of God or in your ability to reduce God to a completely rational, internally consistent construct? What will you do when confronted, as you must be, that God is infinite and above our ability to reduce Him in this manner?

I can almost sense what some of your response might be. There is great danger in going to the opposite extreme and appealing to this mystery to render everything irrational as possible and no, that is not what I'm arguing for at all.

What if you can't keep all the balls in the air intellectually and logically, Jac? What if there are points where after you've done all you know and are capable of doing, where you have to jump in a leap of faith to be caught by the God who is there who will not be seen until after you leap? What then?

What if on some of these issues that we become wrapped around the axles arguing over as Christians, not only are we focusing only that we're capable of rationally grasping and not only are we failing to account for that which is suprarational and what more we're not even asking the right question.

Sorry if that disappoints you Jac in terms of what you expect from me. I've been where I sense you're coming from however and I've found that a foundationally solely rational approach that strives completely for internal consistency sometimes fails to account for the fact that there are things we hold as true that purely, humanly speaking from our finite perspective cannot be reconciled in that manner and that there is great freedom, peace and power and realizing that and ceasing to try beyond a certain point. The beauty is that once we do, Christ enters in and we can fly where before we were struggling to walk.

blessings,

bart

[Byblos]

That, my friend, is simply not consistent with OSAS. Byblos recognized that a long time ago, and since he spoke so perfectly for me, allow me to try to do half the job and speak at least somewhat for him: he would be more than willing to take you into the fold! Indeed, you have the same theology in that regard. But you certainly don't hold to the logical conclusion of OSAS.

I'll be accepting applications until lent.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

If you believe that peopel will do good works if they've believed, then you can have no assurance of your salvation.

I never said that. This is what I've said:

2. Works are not required.
3. Works are the fruit of a saved person.

Some people will produce fruit, some won't. An apple tree is recognized by the apples hanging on it's branches. A sterile apple tree still is an apple tree.

I - me - have complete assurance of my salvation, independent of the fruit the Spirit may or may not produce through me.

If, then, a man must look to his works to prove he has really believed on the basis that a man who has really believed will produce works, then you have a works based assurance, which is, as you well know, no assurance whatsoever.

I never said «a man must look to his works to prove [his salvation.]» You have concluded that I have but it would be impossible for me to say that since I never believed it. This is what I said:

each person [comes] to the faith carrying different idols, that simple answer [faith] is not enough for many. That is why I suggested looking at works (for those carrying the idol of worry) because most Christians will bear fruit.

Like it or not, most Christians will bear fruit. For those Christians who - unlike me - worry about their salvation, I suggested they look to their works for assurance. Think of that as assuaging their Am I Doing This Right? idol. If they mature in their faith, they will no longer need to make offerings at the foot of this idol.

As I stated with Canuckster, this has gone further than I intended. You can have the last word.

I hope I've explained my position clearly this time. Read it, do not read into it.

FL

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
The simple question that answers OSAS (to it's logical conclusion) is this:
Can a person accept Christ as his Lord and Savior, then live as though he/she didn't?

There are several passages in the NT that are attributed as Christ's words. Christ, in Matthew 3 is speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees tells them to “produce fruit in keeping with repentance.” Then says that every tree that does not produce fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. There are a few absolute do's that we must do…two of which are, believe and receive. One cannot be saved without belief…Jac even acknowledges this. Apparently that's all. However there is only one instance in the Bible that presupposes this...the thief on the cross. Maybe there is something to the fact that there is only one example of this?

Concerning my own assurance, I'm one of those people that believes that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. I know I'm saved because I've believed. Notice the period there. I don't really care how I live or what I come to believe (or stop believing) in the future.

(added emphasis)
While we all as Christians hold this same basic sense that belief/faith is the basis of salvation through Jesus Christ, we also have counsel from Christ that we are to bear fruit. (Matt. 7:16-20, 12:33-37, 21:19, 21:43, Luke 6:43-45)

"Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.”

Puts them [words] into practice? This puts some perspective on Jac's position he holds from the above statement.

There are numerous times Christ warns for us to remain in Him. Why? If it is as Jac3510 promotes, that it matters not what we believe tomorrow, but only what we have believed today…then why would Christ lie to us and caution us to remain in Him? Seems contradictory doesn't it?

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

To His Father's glory? Why even glorify God if it makes no difference in salvation?

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.

Obey? Why obey if belief is all that is required? Obey to remain…wow…so confusing.

I can't determine whether another person is saved or not, for who am I to judge another man's servant?...to his own master he will stand or fall (I read that somewhere!)

I think you read that in the context of the unsaved or earthly. We are not servants, but friends. Friends help each other when they need. How do friends know when there is a need? It's a judgement call.

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.”

Master's and servants do not love each other. Friends love each other.

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

More to DO here…bearing fruit, not just living as we wish as OSAS says we can and as Jac3510, by his statement above, promotes.

If it is as Jac3510 holds…that believing is the only thing necessary, then Satan and all his minions would also be saved…for they also believe that God and Christ are who they say they are.

The bible writers promote these words that are in direct contrast to Jac3510's statement of “faith”.
They say:

Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

I would much rather follow their words and more importantly, those of Christ that admonish us to do something.

So...can a person accept Christ as Lord and Savior and then live as though he/she didn't?
.
.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Can a person accept Christ as his Lord and Savior, then live as though he/she didn't?

Yes. From the cultural norm's point-of-view, YES. Here is an example:

There is a case I like to share: At work, this one guy comes around to chat with me every so often. He calls me «Pastor» and likes to talk about Jesus, faith, the church and so on. I believe the guy is saved because what comes out of his mouth is consistent with what a person with a repentant heart would say...except that this man's brain is totally fried. He's not all there. Sometimes he sounds like an idiot, sometimes he's calm and makes sense. He will occasionally use the Lord's name in vain but I think this is more out of habit than out of any malicious intent.

This man smokes a marijuana joint every morning, eats a king size bag of Cheetos and washes it down with a liter of beer. I'm not sure if his brain was fried before he was saved or afterwards. But I'm pretty sure he's saved.

FL

If this man - Daniel is his name - were to walk into any church (save a Catholic church) he would be escorted out. He looks dirty, shifts his weight from one leg to another constantly - giving his body a non-stop balancing motion - and rarely looks at me in the eyes. He is stooped over and bends his neck upwards to keep his head parallel to the ground. His teeth are bared, not in a smile but in a painful grimace. From all appearances, this guy is ready for Hell. But I'm pretty sure he's saved.

Daniel is an extreme example, I admit. With Jesus as Lord of one's life, fruit will be produced for Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. And I know - I'd bet a paycheck on this - that even Daniel produces fruit! Most Christians won't see Daniel's fruit as they will focus on the bizarre human being that he is.

The average Christian I meet who claims to be saved is a changed individual from what he once was. This seems to be a recurring story, and it certainly is mine as well. This is why I said,

Like it or not, most Christians will bear fruit.

Fruit is not required for salvation as the thief on the cross can attest to, but fruit will be there for most Christians. It may be difficult to see - as in Daniel's case - but there it is.

FL

[cslewislover]

So if a person willfully sinned 1 time hes doomed to the lake of fire, no repentance for them, they lose their salvation?
But we as the children of God are told to forgive a person that repents to us for their tresspasses.
Doesn't seem that we are forgiven but we are to forgive?

No, no, that's not what I meant at all. I think I mention what you're asking in a previous post. We're all going to sin until we die and it can all be forgiven.

Aw cslewislover,

I never intended to hurt your feelings and that makes me I did

Byblos is right, I just want to sit back and watch this time around so please keep posting!

Thanks B.W.

I would like to post some pages from Hard Sayings of the Bible (Walter Kaiser et al, InterVarsity Press, 1996) regarding some verses related to apostasy. They are very interesting! There are four verses discussed in this book that relate to losing one's salvation or perhaps never having had it in the first place. This first one is from 2 Peter 2:20. The others are 2 Peter 1:10, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 10:26. If I put up all the pages, it may be a bit long - but worth the read. (Also related to these is Mark3:28-29, regarding the unpardonable sin.)


(2 Peter) 2:20 Worse Off at the End? (pp 729-730)

Christians recognize that before people know Christ they are in bad shape, for they live under the judgment of God, who has commanded all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. It is therefore not hard to see how Christ enables people to escape from the corruption of the world, since this corruption is tied up with their pre-Christian life. Nor do most of us lack for examples of people who have again been “entangled” in the world after they knew Christ; we may even know some who after initially turning to Christ have later totally rejected the gospel in word as well as in action (although most of our “backslidden” brothers and sisters would still confess to the truth of the gospel, even if it is playing no active role in their lives). Yet 2 Peter 2:20 does more than make these common (if sad) observations. It states that such people are “worse off” than before their initial conversion. How can this be the case? Aren't they still Christian even if they are backslidden? Will they not go to heaven despite their sinful life? And isn't this “better” than their original state? Isn't salvation by faith, not works? What 2 Peter says appears incompatible with our concept of a God of grace and mercy.

When we read this verse in context, we recognize that the people being discussed are the false teachers whom Peter opposes. They were once orthodox Christians who were “cleansed from [their] past sins” (2 Pet 1:9), or “washed” (2 Pet 2:22). They had come to know Jesus Christ, and this was a personal knowledge that released them from “the corruption of the world,” or, in Pauline language, the power of sin over them had been broken. And they had come to know “the way of righteousness” (meaning a righteous lifestyle; 2 Pet 2:21). It is not that in some way they had been taught poorly or had not experienced the power of God freeing them from the world and its desires. They had experienced all of this. They were in every way righteous and orthodox.

But now they have done exactly what they are enticing others to do (2 Pet 2:18-19). They have claimed freedom, but their freedom is a freedom to live according to their desires. These desires have mastered them. They have rejected “the way of righteousness” or “the sacred command” (perhaps the teaching of Jesus or even the Old Testament standard of righteousness). They are back doing what they did before they were converted, but now they are claiming Christian justification for it.

Peter says that such people are worse off than before they were converted. He takes his words from the story of Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 about the person cleansed from a demon who ends up in a worse state because the demon returns with seven others. The implication is that the person is in more bondage than before. Yet although verbally 2 Peter is closer to the statement about the demonized person, we are reminded even more of Luke 12:47-48, in which Jesus says that the person who does not know his master's will is beaten with few blows, while the one knowing it and still disobeying is beaten with many blows. Applied to the people in 2 Peter this indicates that the knowingly disobedient people he refers to will get a worse punishment than they would have received had they never been converted. They had been introduced to Jesus and experienced the power and freedom of his lordship, but now they have turned their backs on his teaching and are walking in willful disobedience.

This, then, is the state of the apostate, including the moral apostate who still tries to rationalize his or her sin with Christian theology. As Hebrews 10:26-27 says, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” These people knew the truth and had been freed from their sin, coming under the rule of Christ. Now because of their web of rationalizations Christ is no longer Lord and they “deliberately keep on sinning.” Peter has already told us of their end: “Blackest darkness is reserved for them” (2 Pet 2:17). God will still forgive them if they repent, but people who have rejected truth they once knew fully and have woven a fabric of doctrine to justify their sin will be most unlikely ever to repent. This letter, then, appears to be more aimed at those people the false teachers are beginning to deceive (2 Pet 2:18) that at the teachers themselves, for while the teachers are not beyond grace, they are certainly not listening to the ideas of the author.

The teaching of this passage (and of the New Testament in general), then, is that people are responsible for what they know. To reject truth one has once appropriated is far more serious than never to have known it. Furthermore, only those who follow the way of righteousness, who are really following Jesus as Lord and have therefore been freed from the corruption in the world, are on the way to the kingdom. To claim to be “saved” while living in sin is self-deception of the worst type. It not only blinds one to one's own state, but it may deceive those who were getting along well in the faith, dragging them back into the quicksand in which those living in sin are themselves trapped.

This verse, then, is not implying that righteous living saves a person, but that salvation means repenting from a sinful lifestyle, turning to Christ as Lord, and living under his kingship. Where the results of this process (such as a freedom from the power of sin) are lacking—even if they once were present—we have no right to think for a moment that such people are in the kingdom, especially if they show no grief for their sin and are not attempting to forsake it. Furthermore it is dangerous to imply that such people are headed to heaven (even if without “reward”), for it cheapens the grace of God and implies to others that they too can take the “low road” to heaven and get in without truly submitting their lives to Christ. Such an implication could effect the same result that the false teachers were trying to produce in Peter's day, that is, entice a believer who is in the process of escaping the “corruption in the world” back into the entrapment.

See also comment on Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26; 1 John 5:16-17.