Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Summary of 2 Peter
Answering Protestants ^ | 25 September 2013 | Matthew Olson

Posted on 09/25/2013 6:15:23 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; god; jesus; peter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

1 posted on 09/25/2013 6:15:23 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

“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. “

So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?


2 posted on 09/25/2013 6:21:27 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

I read it, I’m an unapologetic, sold-out, born-again evangelical non-Catholic Christian, and I don’t have any trouble with any of it. I guess I felt the need to say so, since the name of the blog is “Answering Protestants”.


3 posted on 09/25/2013 6:22:25 AM PDT by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?

Now you are getting it ... do not seek to understand the scriptures ... just believe what the RCC tells you they mean ...

You sir ... are almost "home" ... < /sarc>

4 posted on 09/25/2013 6:32:28 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Yeah, I get it, we could just throw darts at scripture and pick and choose what we want that way. That’d work well. Of course, man removed from the time of Christ by 1900 years leaving out some books of Scripture can understand it. (/sarc)


5 posted on 09/25/2013 6:35:40 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

Well you can throw darts at the Word of God. You could even burn it.

I prefer to read it leaving out the parts which are not the inerrant inspired word of God. The same parts which have a multitude of errors.


6 posted on 09/25/2013 6:44:03 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Now you are getting it ... do not seek to understand the scriptures ... just believe what the RCC tells you they mean ...

How many verse of the Bible has the Catholic Church defined?

7 posted on 09/25/2013 6:47:35 AM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: verga

I don’t understand your question


8 posted on 09/25/2013 6:49:22 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
“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. “

So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?

LOL! The whole article is an exercise in "individual interpretation".

9 posted on 09/25/2013 6:57:31 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Good point, Christ founded a Book... Oh wait.


10 posted on 09/25/2013 6:59:18 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

So you’re saying Christ founded a building?


11 posted on 09/25/2013 7:01:32 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
I don’t understand your question

Let me rephrase it for you. Exactly how may verse in the Bible has the Catholic Church definitively interpreted?

Protestants have a habit of saying that the Church has mandated specific interpretations. Surely the protestant community can tell me how many verses the Church has said you must follow their interpretation.

12 posted on 09/25/2013 7:08:51 AM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Oh you think the Church means building? Really?? Haven’t you read Paul??


13 posted on 09/25/2013 7:11:36 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: matthewrobertolson

The Church is the Body of Christ.

“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

Ephesians 1:23

And many other verses.


14 posted on 09/25/2013 7:18:57 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verga
Exactly how may verse in the Bible has the Catholic Church definitively interpreted?

How many verses in the Bible does the Catechism reference?

Each time a verse is referenced in a section of the Catechism, it provides the Churches interpretation of that passage.

15 posted on 09/25/2013 7:22:05 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

No, you are the one that questioned the source of the Bible.

The Church Christ founded is the People, not a denomination, a building, or a doctrine.


16 posted on 09/25/2013 7:58:57 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Nobody questioned the source of the Bible.

Post #11.

“So you’re saying Christ founded a building?” - DriftDriver

I see no where where post 10 which you refer to mentions building.

Post #10

“Good point, Christ founded a Book... Oh wait.”


By the way, the point of post #6 is that according to some, the Bible could be interpreted in any number of ways per post #2:

“So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?”

Well, we could use any means of interpretation then.

And we can extract verses out of context as well.

But Christ didn’t found a book.


17 posted on 09/25/2013 8:14:33 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

Holy Spirit, help us!


18 posted on 09/25/2013 8:17:05 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

‘But Christ didn’t found a book.”

Strawman since I never said that, you did.

Except of course God did “found a book” but it wasn’t really a book. The bible IS the inerrant inspired Word of God. Your statement indicated you didn’t think God did “found a book” which of course in the Bible in this context.

The Word of God does instruct us to be wary of false teachers.


19 posted on 09/25/2013 8:18:23 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“No, you are the one that questioned the source of the Bible.”

Exact post where I say I questioned the source of the Bible? If you can not produce it, no reason to continue to discuss an issue dishonestly.

First you imply someone mentioned a building where it is not in a post which shows a lack of understanding now to come back and say the church is the people after maybe some minutes of research.


20 posted on 09/25/2013 8:18:48 AM PDT by BeadCounter (Really? Syria?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

“Exact post where I say I questioned the source of the Bible?”

Post #10.

I mentioned building because that’s all any church is without the people.

You keep charging me with not understanding. Perhaps you could try some facts instead of making judgements.


21 posted on 09/25/2013 8:23:17 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Each time a verse is referenced in a section of the Catechism, it provides the Churches interpretation of that passage.

Nice try but I said Definitive.

22 posted on 09/25/2013 8:24:38 AM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: verga
Definitive? You teach the catechism to new Catholics ... and you are going to try to defend the position that it doesn't contain official church interpretation of scripture?

If its not in the catechism ... where would you go to get the official RCC interpretation of a passage?

Are you really going to play semantic games and try to argue ... "nowhere" ?

23 posted on 09/25/2013 8:33:16 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: verga
So where would I go to get the definitive interpretation of say John 6:54?

54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

24 posted on 09/25/2013 9:18:16 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dartuser; verga

Verga I’d also be interested in your answer here. If the catechism isn’t considered definitive then what would be?

Are you saying new Catholics all over the world are being taught a false doctrine?


25 posted on 09/25/2013 9:18:59 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Are you really going to play semantic games and try to argue ... "nowhere" ?

Just so I am clear is your position that the Catholic Church has definitively interpreted EVERY SINGLE verse in the Bible?

26 posted on 09/25/2013 10:29:44 AM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

See post #26


27 posted on 09/25/2013 10:30:41 AM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: verga

What’s the definition of is?


28 posted on 09/25/2013 11:02:59 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: verga
Not being Catholic ... if you tell me the RCC hasn't interpreted EVERY verse then that is good enough for me ... I believe you.

Having said that ... where is the databank of official verses they HAVE interpreted?

And personally, if you are going to claim authority over the interpretation of scripture ... why WOULDN'T that include all of it.

29 posted on 09/25/2013 11:22:17 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: verga

So you’re saying the Catholic Church does not have an opinion on every single verse in the Bible?

What does “definitively interpreted” mean? If I asked a Priest what John 3:16 means would he have to check his magic book to see if that verse is one the Catholic Church has interpreted?

Or would he be able to tell you the Church’s stance on the verse? I bet this is the answer.


30 posted on 09/25/2013 12:06:06 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Not being Catholic ... if you tell me the RCC hasn't interpreted EVERY verse then that is good enough for me ... I believe you.

Having said that ... where is the databank of official verses they HAVE interpreted?

And personally, if you are going to claim authority over the interpretation of scripture ... why WOULDN'T that include all of it.

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's.

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day. I know myself that there have been days when I will read a verse and see something a week later I might take something else from it. This site has a list of the verses that have been definitively interpreted: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-verses-defined-by-catholic-church.html

31 posted on 09/25/2013 12:26:42 PM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dartuser; verga
Actually the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church.

So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible.

Now, that doesn't include the single verse taken out of context as if it's a stand alone doctrine in and of itself approach that I've seen and heard from non-Catholic authors and speakers who ignore context whenever it suits their agenda, but it is complete.

So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

32 posted on 09/25/2013 12:30:11 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: verga
The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning.

Cherry, anyone?

33 posted on 09/25/2013 12:31:31 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Cherry, anyone?

Shhhhh the adults are having a converstation.

34 posted on 09/25/2013 12:46:23 PM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
They are authoritative, but are not definitive. I chose my words very carefully.
35 posted on 09/25/2013 12:47:46 PM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
...the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church. So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible....So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

Interesting. In my thirteen+ years on FR, this is the first time that I've ever heard of this.

36 posted on 09/25/2013 12:47:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
So Cornelius a'Lapide writes a massive volume ... including his commentary on most of scripture ... which by default must certainly contain his own interpretation of scripture ... but when I comment on why such-and-such a verse is being misused under the normal rules of the grammatical historical approach ... I am using my own private interpretation of scripture?

What made his interpretation ... not private?

37 posted on 09/25/2013 12:51:00 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: verga
The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. A dozen? And you consider that sufficient?

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day.

Multiple applications ... fine. Multiple interpretations? I don't think so ... unless you believe each verse has multiple interpretations.

38 posted on 09/25/2013 12:55:52 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: verga

This definition of IS is?


39 posted on 09/25/2013 1:11:20 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"What made his interpretation ... not private?"

The Pope asked him to do it and assigned people to ensure known references, connections, and usage were taken to account.

Chapters were reviewed as they were completed looking for problems, and making sure past Hebrew past usage in earlier approved writings were taken into account in the Latin commentary. a'Lapide was the Hebrew scholar of his day and prior Jewish interpretation was very important to him.

Everything was reviewed and approved by proper Church authorities which in and of itself makes sure it's not "his private interpretation".

40 posted on 09/25/2013 1:36:29 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

But its apparently not a definitive interpretation, right?


41 posted on 09/25/2013 2:12:28 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Exhaustive with the Imprimatur of The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded as close as humanly possible to definitive.

No alternative is even in the same league, especially the individual Self and Self Alone interpretations.

42 posted on 09/25/2013 2:44:30 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Estin.


43 posted on 09/25/2013 5:35:45 PM PDT by verga (Lasciante ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter
Yeah, I get it, we could just throw darts at scripture and pick and choose what we want that way.

That's exactly what's going on here...

Every verse in 2 Peter has verses that go with it in other parts of the scriptures to complete the picture...

1Co_2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1Co_2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Doesn't take anything spiritual to read down thru a chapter and form an opinion, does it???

44 posted on 09/25/2013 6:35:02 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: verga
How many verse of the Bible has the Catholic Church defined?

About a half a dozen...But accurately, zero...

45 posted on 09/25/2013 6:37:25 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter
But Christ didn’t found a book.

If he didn't the bible is no more valuable than an encyclopedia...Maybe that's the point, eh???

46 posted on 09/25/2013 6:41:20 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: verga
Nice try but I said Definitive.

Absolutely zero...None...Nein...Nada...Nyet...Dah...Non...Ochi...'A'ole...

47 posted on 09/25/2013 6:49:55 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
So where would I go to get the definitive interpretation of say John 6:54?

Right here: John 6:63...

48 posted on 09/25/2013 6:58:16 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Rashputin; dartuser; verga
Actually the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church.

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

    Imprimatur: The Permission of a bishop to print books regarding the Faith [Source: A Brief Catholic Dictionary (Boston: St Paul Catechetical Center, 1985), 15].

    The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed. This applies only after precensorship; it is not specifically applied to the permission of a major religious superior. [Source: Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288.]


50 posted on 09/25/2013 9:43:25 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson