P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Wayne Grudem, in his essay found in the same book, “Perseverance of the Saints” [takes time to download], argues from the wording of the “true proverb” that “the repentance was only an outward cleansing, and did not change their true nature.” I love Wayne Grudem, but his argument is undercut by S. M. Baugh’s reference to 2 Peter 2:20 in his essay on foreknowledge (just mentioned) and, in light of the analysis I’ve provided above, by the fact that Wayne himself says that the false prophets had indeed, “escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In other words, he sees the hypothetical argument as having come to pass in these false prophets. And I hope that I have already provided enough evidence to show that if the hypothesis has come to pass, then it has surely come to pass upon former Christians.
What Wayne goes on to say is that this verse indicates that the false prophets merely had cognitive “knowledge of the gospel,” rather than the intimate knowledge of God that comes from being in a loving relationship with Him. But the verse specifically says that they had knowledge of our Lord and Savior, not of the gospel that tells us about Him. And, again, Baugh takes this “knowledge” to be a reference to their knowing God, or rather their being known by God, in a personal relationship. Most importantly, I think that being a beloved son or daughter is Peter’s own understanding of what it means to have knowledge of our Lord and Savior: that we “may become partakers of the divine nature” (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4). On the other hand, I don’t want to push this distinction too far, because Jesus Himself is the Gospel, and Peter makes reference to the false prophets turning back from “the holy commandment (not Jesus) delivered to them” after having “known the way of righteousness.” This might suggest to some that a personal relationship with Jesus is not what these false prophets have turned back from, but rather they have simply turned from a cognitive awareness of some things about Jesus. But “Jesus is the end of the law for righteousness” and we are called the Way after the Name of Jesus Who is the Way, the Way to the Father, the Way of the Father, and the Way of Righteousness. What is the holy commandment? “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). And so the false prophets did have cognitive knowledge of the Gospel and they knew the way of righteousness. But we cannot necessarily conclude from this that knowing Jesus is not in view and I think the that Peter indicates that it is (cf. again 1:3-4).
Now let’s take a closer look at the wording of the proverb itself. It reads, “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire” (2 Pet 2:22). It says that a dog returns to his vomit. Grudem argues that the wording of the proverb refers only to an outward cleansing. Strangely enough, vomiting is actually an inward cleansing!
And what does a washed pig signify? Most naturally it would refer to a person who has experienced the “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” when we rise and are baptized and we wash away our sins (Titus 3:5; cf. Acts 22:16): “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Eze 36:25). Listen up, pig, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). But even if the pig imagery is not convincing for an inner cleansing by itself, the two proverbs together certainly signify both an inward cleansing (by vomiting) and an outward cleansing (by washing). And so “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22). More importantly, I would say that the washing that Peter has in mind for his pig is the same washing he mentions at the beginning of his letter when he warns Christians that “whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (2 Peter 1:9). A couple points to make here: (1) When we are cleansed of our sin, it is for past sins, and (2) comparing this verse with chapter 2, a person can “forget” that he has been cleansed of his past sins and “turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” to go back to a life of sin, getting “entangled in them and overcome,” as the lives of the false prophets have shown us: “The sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
This seems to me the most natural reading of 2 Peter, and I personally found it to be very persuasive in convincing me that the Reformed position is flawed in its understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
In conclusion, although they may fall away for a time, the elect will certainly persevere to the end; but not all Christians will persevere to the end.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
What Wayne goes on to say is that this verse indicates that the false prophets merely had cognitive “knowledge of the gospel,” rather than the intimate knowledge of God that comes from being in a loving relationship with Him. But the verse specifically says that they had knowledge of our Lord and Savior, not of the gospel that tells us about Him. And, again, Baugh takes this “knowledge” to be a reference to their knowing God, or rather their being known by God, in a personal relationship. Most importantly, I think that being a beloved son or daughter is Peter’s own understanding of what it means to have knowledge of our Lord and Savior: that we “may become partakers of the divine nature” (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4). On the other hand, I don’t want to push this distinction too far, because Jesus Himself is the Gospel, and Peter makes reference to the false prophets turning back from “the holy commandment (not Jesus) delivered to them” after having “known the way of righteousness.” This might suggest to some that a personal relationship with Jesus is not what these false prophets have turned back from, but rather they have simply turned from a cognitive awareness of some things about Jesus. But “Jesus is the end of the law for righteousness” and we are called the Way after the Name of Jesus Who is the Way, the Way to the Father, the Way of the Father, and the Way of Righteousness. What is the holy commandment? “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). And so the false prophets did have cognitive knowledge of the Gospel and they knew the way of righteousness. But we cannot necessarily conclude from this that knowing Jesus is not in view and I think the that Peter indicates that it is (cf. again 1:3-4).
Now let’s take a closer look at the wording of the proverb itself. It reads, “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire” (2 Pet 2:22). It says that a dog returns to his vomit. Grudem argues that the wording of the proverb refers only to an outward cleansing. Strangely enough, vomiting is actually an inward cleansing!
And what does a washed pig signify? Most naturally it would refer to a person who has experienced the “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” when we rise and are baptized and we wash away our sins (Titus 3:5; cf. Acts 22:16): “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Eze 36:25). Listen up, pig, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). But even if the pig imagery is not convincing for an inner cleansing by itself, the two proverbs together certainly signify both an inward cleansing (by vomiting) and an outward cleansing (by washing). And so “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22). More importantly, I would say that the washing that Peter has in mind for his pig is the same washing he mentions at the beginning of his letter when he warns Christians that “whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (2 Peter 1:9). A couple points to make here: (1) When we are cleansed of our sin, it is for past sins, and (2) comparing this verse with chapter 2, a person can “forget” that he has been cleansed of his past sins and “turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” to go back to a life of sin, getting “entangled in them and overcome,” as the lives of the false prophets have shown us: “The sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”This seems to me the most natural reading of 2 Peter, and I personally found it to be very persuasive in convincing me that the Reformed position is flawed in its understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
In conclusion, although they may fall away for a time, the elect will certainly persevere to the end; but not all Christians will persevere to the end.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
