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.
“The only Lord God,” or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price.
Calvin, Jude 4.
Whenever I direct people to read these two Calvin comments I am always told, in no uncertain terms, that I have taken him out of context. Of course no real reason is given. Rainbow tries to tell his readers that here Calvin is here simply speaking of the judgement of charity: “They are, from the point of view of their intention, and from the point of view of the judgement of charity and pastoral practice, destroying the work of Christ.” Jonathan Rainbow The Will of God and The Cross, (Pennsylvania: Pickwick Publications, 1990), 168-169. In the next few months I want to show that this is hardly credible, but that Calvin reflects the wider theological position that Christ objectively paid the price of redemption for all men.
That’s not intelligible. The judgment of charity is for professing believers. It can’t apply to apostates, unless one just assumes they will come back to the faith.
[...] He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassa… Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
I do not see your point here. Of course I think I know your theology better than the average reader. At least I hope so.
Can you prove this statement is about those outside the Church? Even the incest of 1 Corinthians is within the Church. While this quote my be in “context” of the commentary, what exactly to you take it to mean?
As one of MY dearest brothers in the faith, and closest friends, I really wish you would add some commentary. Specifically, because for appearances sake it looks like you provide proof texts and leave the reader to draw your conclusions (not his own) without taking ownership of those conclusions.
It seems to me that you assume readers know all you posts. What is the average person that stops by to think? What is the person that does not have the desire to read all you past posts to think?
If you’ll bear with me, I think commentary to every verse of scripture or theologian is important. To me, that alone drives someone to read the archived posts.
Unless I am mistaken, you appear to be posting to those “in the know”. Help us average Joe’s out with some commentary and links to previous posts.
Will all love,
Josh
Hey Mark,
Well I agree with you its not that credible. What this line of argument really needs is for Peter to have said something like this: “They denied the Lord whom they claimed had redeemed them,” or “They, whom we assumed were redeemed, have now denied the Lord.” I think either is impossible because the text does not say either. But these options have come to be the standard–because of lots of reasons–along with Owen’s (followed by G.Long) incredible claim that agorazo here has the same import or function as: ‘to establish,’ ‘to create’ etc. I think that reading is simply wild. :-) What it does is effectively invent a new semantic domain for the agorazo word group. :-) That is so rich, because for the most part he has gotten away with it. ha ha ha
Dabney’s take is interesting too. He has Peter speaking ad hominem. I dont quite see that either.
Thats why 99% of the time, I always come back to Calvin. I mean that, Calvin is the best.
David
Hey Josh, \
I didnt realise you were talking to me.
Josh: Can you prove this statement is about those outside the Church? Even the incest of 1 Corinthians is within the Church. While this quote my be in “context” of the commentary, what exactly to you take it to mean?
David: I think it refers to apostates, folk who reject the faith, they were in the church, but then they left the church. I think Calvin can say what he does say because of his wider theology.
Josh: As one of MY dearest brothers in the faith, and closest friends, I really wish you would add some commentary. Specifically, because for appearances sake it looks like you provide proof texts and leave the reader to draw your conclusions (not his own) without taking ownership of those conclusions.
David: I must really frustrate you at times. :-( Sorry man. I guess I want to reader to be aware of this stuff and hopefully they will start digging.
Josh: It seems to me that you assume readers know all you posts. What is the average person that stops by to think? What is the person that does not have the desire to read all you past posts to think?
David: Ah. Well yes, I make certain assumptions. I expect those who are interested will ask questions. Those not, will pass on, picking up material they are interested in. Folk can read the archives, search the blog. I dont know what they think unless they ask questions, comment or challenge.
Josh: If you’ll bear with me, I think commentary to every verse of scripture or theologian is important. To me, that alone drives someone to read the archived posts.
David: Ah okay. I am more about making the documentation available. At other times I will provide commentary. Sometimes tho, I will rather let the documentation do its own talking.
Josh: Unless I am mistaken, you appear to be posting to those “in the know”. Help us average Joe’s out with some commentary and links to previous posts.
David: No, if that were so then the numbers in the know would fit on my hand, and I might only need about 4 fingers to reach a conclusion. :-) This is a new thread-subject from me and so the first in this thread. There is not a lot to link back to yet. I plan to in a little while put some things together.
Take care,
David
Dave,
Your as generous as always in your reply. I know we just have a different mind set when it comes to blogging. I seem to want to teach directly, where you seem to teach indirectly.
Thanks for your time and response.
Hey Josh,
I thought of this over the weekend. Part of what I want to do is provide documentation from other soures within the Reformed tradition which serve to demonstrate that there are altenatives angles of approach to take on critical verses and theologial points. One does not have to buy into all that some later Calvinists have claimed in order to be a geniune Calvinist.
Take care,
David
Obviously these words apply to apostates and as John says in his first Epistle, Chap2v19-’They went out from us but they were not of us; …but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us…’
I see no reason to interpret 2Peter,Chap v1 any differently. Their teaching, specifically ‘denies the Lord that bought them’….this is what they teach, and it is heretical. How this is supposed to destroy Limited Atonement is beyond me!
I guess I would want to say this verse does not “destroy” particlar redemption as properly defined.
How exactly do you think it would or could be used to destroy limited atonement?
You might want to check out the posts archived here.
Thanks for stopping by.
David