Jumping ahead (cont)

Another email exchange. I need to get on the attack eventually, or at least present a positive defense of justification by faith alone, which I'm hinting at over and over, but haven't gotten to.

And if you guys haven't read the hitchens wilson debate, I'd highly suggest it. Douglas Wilson is doing a splendid job of demonstrating the utter irrationality of the atheistic worldview.

Gar,.

This is what I get when I speak off the cuff. Let me see if I can do some damage control. I'd like to get into positive presentations eventually, but I've been lazy.

On 5/10/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Thanks again for your replies, Mickey. One more clarification (again, just
so I can get your position straight).

I'm afraid your exegesis on 2Pet 2:1 confused me more than anything
else. In your blog, you seemed to suggest that these false teachers were
probably never even temporally justified at all--that "the Master who
bought them" just means "the God who created them." However, in your
e-mail, you say that "the Master who bought them" means "Jesus who
delivered them" as God delivered even wicked Israelites from Egypt.

Once again, I'm hesitant to speak of "temporal justification", as I'm not sure that those words are necessitated by Scripture. I view justification as "being declared righteous" (as the same word is used to translate those two ideas). It is a legal declaration by God as sovereign judge over all creation, and that sentence is given to all the elect. They are righteous on the basis of Christ's righteous life lived while he walked the earth and on the basis of nothing within themselves, or even "infused" in them.

(another distinction that I've discovered, you would say we are righteous on the basis of Christ in us (our works, while we live). I would say we are righteous on the basis of us in Christ (His works, while he lived)).

I would prefer to speak of "temporal setting apart" or "in a covenant with God." This summarizes well what I was talking about. People can keep the covenant or break it. For the elect, Christ as kept it and now that covenant keeping is considered as "done" by all those who have faith, apart from any personal "covenant keeping" or "covenant breaking" they do. Those who are justified of course, will persevere in covenant keeping (to a degree), but it's not because they kept the covenant that they are justified, but because Christ did.

Regarding 2 Peter, I think I would go back to a general "God" since that's how God revealed himself previously in the OT. I can't name names (was it Jesus? or God the Father?), but if I had to guess, I'd say God the father. I'm not particularly committed to that though.

Since I don't see how non-temporally-justified reprobate could be said to be
delivered from anything other than a state of non-existence, this implies
to me that you think these false teachers were temporally justified--that,
thanks to Jesus' blood which made the Christian community possible, they
were temporarily delivered from the defilements of the world by living as
an apparent member of that community.

Just as creation of people in general and the deliverance of Israel in
particular out of Egypt were two entirely separate events, I feel that "the
God who created them" and "Jesus who delivered them" are two
non-overlapping interpretations of "the Master who bought them." Are you
willing to commit to one or the other? If the former, do you think it
possible that these false teachers were never temporally justified at
all? And, if the latter, does this interpretation necessarily entail
temporal justification?

That's true, they are non-overlapping. As that post was based upon another research, whom I think has done better study on it than myself, I would probably go with his conclusion over mine. It's God who created them.

That said, that interpretation does not necessarily entail being in a covenant at all, and rather could refer to all those who blaspheme God in the way these false teachers have.

But, it seems these false teachers were members of the physical church (though obviously not members of the True Church), and thus are in a covenant, so the option of temporal setting apart (sanctification) can be understood there. With that case, I would say these false teachers are breaking the covenant and were never (?? not 100%, but Peter's language is strong) justified (eternally).

Thanks!

Cheers,

George

Hope this helps.