Very good, buddy, that is exactly the kind of thing I dislike in the modern commentaries. This is scholarship?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I was working on project for a class where we evaluated the arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.

Schreiner made me sick as well. He lauds men, who in their conclusions, are approaching heresy; and then in his own conclusions sides with the conservative side.

The man Schreiner lifts up this time is R. Bauckham. Schreiner speaks of “outstanding commentary” in which Bauckham concludes that 2 Peter “belongs to the testament genre” and is (quoting Bauckham) “‘transparent fiction'”. Basically, Bauckham believes 2 Peter was written pseudonymously but the readers would know that Peter did not write that epistle.

Of course the problem with this view is the fact that the epistle begins by claiming to be “Simon Peter” who is the apostle of Jesus Christ who personally saw the transfigured Christ. If this was written pseudonymously then the author was INSPIRED to write something that is by nature deceptive. God is not the author of confusion and would not have inspired deception nor would approve of that methodology.

If Bauckham’s views could be proven correct, Bauckham is actually proving the Bible to be un-inspired and therefore errant. This man is preaching heresy.

Schreiner (I am tempted to call him “a rat”) says “It should be said at the outset that Bauckham’s view is possible.” (NAC, 274) Schreiner then casts doubt on whether or not Bauckham’s view is conclusive and then gives his own opinion of the matter: “We [Schreiner and all his friends on the conservative side] conclude that 2 Peter is authentic and that such a conclusion is more persuasive than competing theories.” (NAC, 276)

While Schreiner gives a little relief by finally siding with the conservative side, he has no idea how close to heresy his exaltation of false teachers has gone.

I agree, Schreiner isn’t worth your time…unless you want to get fired up for the truth, that is!