[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Barbarian]

You may have a point and perhaps I am trying to put too much weight on a single verse but if we zoom out a bit and read the chapter and the one before it to discover the context - the meaning becomes clear.

Peter specifically mentioned the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. The phrase "all things continue," simply means that they continue without God: Diesm.

If so, it has no application to evolution, since deism is not an assumption of evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

If so, it has no application to evolution, since deism is not an assumption of evolution.

Oh, I dunno... I've heard people say that there was no biblical flood -- and many who are religious and support evolution (along with the very long age of the earth) fit rather nicely into the description of Deism.

Per Wiki:
According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

Christian Deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Deism. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings — but not divinity — of Jesus.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If so, it has no application to evolution, since deism is not an assumption of evolution.

Oh, I dunno... I've heard people say that there was no biblical flood --

If you think the flood of Genesis is an allegory, that makes you a deist? How so?

According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it.

I don't see any inconsistency in saying that God is intimately connected to every bit of creation and periodically intervenes in it miraculously, and at the same time saying that the Genesis flood is allegorical.

 

[Sparkey]

Don't take it personally. I wasn't talking about Deism more so than the epistle the Peter wrote. He mentioned the flood. When I mentioned Deism, I was thinking about the founding fathers of America (and Thomas Jefferson specifically), not you.

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. - (2Pe 3:1-7 KJV)

As far as I know, Barbarian, you don't fit the bill, but you know better than I do. The point is the point, Peter didn't mention Deism but from what he did say, they would fit the bill. Peter was talking about the day of Judgment and telling us that there would be some who would come who were willingly (purposefully) ignorant of the biblical flood and the fact that God has (and will) act to judge mankind -- they comforted themselves by pretending that the world (and they themselves) was nowhere close to being judged. The Holy Spirit, through Peter, urges us to not be like them and to consider what kind of life we should lead, since we know what will soon happen.

Actually, Deists don't fully fit the bill either because in the previous chapter he described the ones he spoke more fully - He said they were "false teachers" who denied that the Lord bought them. He said they would make merchandise of you, that they walk after the flesh, despise government(s) and can not cease from sin.
__________________________

Still, those things that are characteristic of those "reserved for destruction," whose "judgment does not linger," and whose "damnation does not slumber," are the very things that Peter says we should be aware of and shun. He spoke of damnable heresies and false teachers. He spoke of what "teachings" or heresies we were to be familiar with. The epistle was very specific when it mentioned the flood and the conclusion that the world (not just a localized region or an allegorical world) would be judged.

To answer your question (and give my opinion) I would think that if somebody thought the flood was allegorical but accepted the conclusion of the Word of God in 2Peter -- that person would strive to lead a life of holiness and this would be considered by his/her Father in Heaven. Stil, we are urged to "be teachers few" because they receive greater condemnation (judgment). If I were in that position, I think it would be prudent to keep my personal belief to myself and not try to teach others.

My brethren, be not many masters [teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. - (Jam 3:1 KJV)

 

[Barbarian]

Don't take it personally. I wasn't talking about Deism more so than the epistle the Peter wrote. He mentioned the flood. When I mentioned Deism, I was thinking about the founding fathers of America (and Thomas Jefferson specifically), not you.

Oh, I wasn't thinking that. You may have noticed that I tend to be blunt. I value bluntness. Don't worry about offending me by mere difference of opinion. I'm just intrigued; we don't (and can't) know if the Flood of Genesis refers to one of the great floods that have occured in the Earth's history, or if it's allegorical. That isn't for us to know for sure.

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. - (2Pe 3:1-7 KJV)


As I said, Paul doesn't deny the antecedent, he denies the conclusion.

As far as I know, Barbarian, you don't fit the bill, but you know better than I do. The point is the point, Peter didn't mention Deism but from what he did say, they would fit the bill.

So would atheists, and Manicheans, and so on.

Peter was talking about the day of Judgment and telling us that there would be some who would come who were willingly (purposefully) ignorant of the biblical flood and the fact that God has (and will) act to judge mankind -- they comforted themselves by pretending that the world (and they themselves) was nowhere close to being judged. The Holy Spirit, through Peter, urges us to not be like them and to consider what kind of life we should lead, since we know what will soon happen.

Since one's take on YE creationism is not of consequence to salvation, I don't think that's what this is about.

He spoke of what "teachings" or heresies we were to be familiar with. The epistle was very specific when it mentioned the flood and the conclusion that the world (not just a localized region or an allegorical world) would be judged.

If he meant that, he certainly wasn't very plain in saying so. It doesn't directly say that at all, and I don't see how one can infer such a thing from it.

To answer your question (and give my opinion) I would think that if somebody thought the flood was allegorical but accepted the conclusion of the Word of God in 2Peter -- that person would strive to lead a life of holiness and this would be considered by his/her Father in Heaven. Stil, we are urged to "be teachers few" because they receive greater condemnation (judgment). If I were in that position, I think it would be prudent to keep my personal belief to myself and not try to teach others.

What if you were wrong. Would it apply the other way?

 

[Sparkey]

Yes, if I were wrong and taught others in error, it would apply.

The epistle was very specific when it mentioned the flood and the conclusion that the world (not just a localized region or an allegorical world) would be judged.

If he meant that, he certainly wasn't very plain in saying so. It doesn't directly say that at all, and I don't see how one can infer such a thing from it.

Let's go see, shall we?
In chapter 2, Peter begins his discussion about the group we may call the "false teachers": "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. - (2Pe 2:1 KJV)

We see directly that they shall bring in damnable heresies culminating in the denial of the fact that they were bought by the blood of Jesus. Peter continues to speak of them throughout the remainder of the chapter. In the beginning of the 3rd chapter he reveals the main reason that he wrote the letter:

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
- (2Pe 3:1-3 KJV)

2Peter 3:5 states that "they" are willingly ignorant of the fact that the world perished by way of God's judgment through the flood. This relates directly back to the previous chapter when he first mentioned the flood in 2Peter 2:5. He had already discussed the flood (amongst other things) and had shown that if God didn't spare in the past, surely he would not spare when the Day of Judgment came.

Peter wrote to show what he saw was already happening and what would intensify. He wasn't mincing words when describing the false teachers (as we saw in chapter 2). He knew that one of the teachings that he had already seen begin was the denial of the 2nd coming of Christ. Peter knew that once he was off the scene, the flock would be vulnerable to such false teaching. So after talking about the false teachers (very brutally and needfully) in chapter 2, he seems to key off this one matter doctrinally that he is especially concerned with because it is a salvation issue -- that is, scoffers will be coming on the scene saying, "Well, were is the Lords coming (that you say is imminent and spoke of so frequently)???"






So chapter 3, the closing chapter, deals with that particular issue. Chapter 3 divides itself very nicely into 2 sections: First (verses 1 through 9): The Lord, and "His delay". The first 7 verses show the ridicule of the lost, and in verses 8 and 9, the restraint of the Lord.

2nd Peter Chapter 3:

1. Section One:
   1. The Lord, and His "delay"
   2. The Ridicule of the Lost
   3. The Restraint of the Lord

Then we see the second part of the chapter, "The Lord and His Day". With that also dividing into two were Verses 10-13 describe "His Implementation," and 14 through 18 speak about the "Implication" of the Day of the Lord.


The Apostle Peter had a passion to put people in remembrance of the truth which is the sign of a good teacher, of a true pastor. A good teacher isn't so much concerned with people being impressed with his teaching as much as he is concerned with their truly learning. Peter wasn't trying to impress with new insights or deeper doctrine but used an age old device -- repetition. He said, I want to put you in remembrance of these things (though you know them). He wanted his followers to be established in them. He wanted his readers to remember both what the Holy Prophets had said (in the Old Testament) and what he (and the apostles) commanded. He understood that his writings were on par with the writings of the prophets of old.

Peter then went on to say that there would come scoffers and mockers who would deny the 2nd coming of Christ. And basically he said there was another time when they were scoffing and mocking (spoken of by the Prophets of old). There was a man by the name of Noah. That man pounded away, day after day, and constructed a huge prophetic illustration as he built the arc and said, "A storm is coming". Now, my personal belief is that at the time of Noah, it had never rained - so the natural reaction was one of derision and scoffing and mocking, but even it is had rained (as some argue) it had never rained like that before. Noah was pounding on boards year after year, decade after decade, in fact over an hundred years he was out there pounding and declaring the coming judgment of God and preaching to people. As the decades passed and as the years passed on, they would mock him, saying, "Old man, I don't noah 'bout what yer saying."

Ultimately it was the ones who laughed at Noah who chose to not believe and scoff and mock at the idea who were destroyed. Jesus is coming (by the same word - that was given of old) and another destruction will come, this time by fire. Jesus will bring and establish his kingdom on earth.
Peter spoke of those as scoffers and mockers who want to walk in their own [animal or fleshly] lusts. (This is my thought, apart from what Peter said, "If we came from animals (and not from God) what other behavior should we expect?")

So we see that Peter spoke about the "Ridicule of the Lost" and compares what we know from the past to what is promised in our near future.
_________________

Barbarian, if I am making a mistake in my exegesis of the epistle kindly correct me and show how one may separate the example from the message. Seems to me to be very clearly stated but I know you well enough to understand that you have reason behind what you say.