"I save dead people" -- God

Status
Not open for further replies.

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,052
9,491
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟481,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
drstevej said:
We are talking about free will in humans, not angels. Why must all beings be identical? Prove this assumption and then you point becomes relevant.

Until you prove the assumption that God has created all beings identical your mention of Lucifer is a red herring.

The topic is anthropology not angelology.

Is there HUMAN free will in heaven.... sheesh. :doh:

Then your question was not concise enough. :wave:

YOU said does HEAVEN have FREE WILL.?..and no matter what being resides there aside from God, they will have free will.

I am sure free will is always and never ending.

 
Upvote 0

UMP

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2004
5,022
116
✟5,772.00
Faith
Christian
holdon said:
This whole article is refuted by one verse from Scripture:

Romans 5:8 "but God commends his love to us, in that, we being still sinners, Christ has died for us."

Please elaborate as to how Romans 5:8 refutes the text I posted?

BTW. The "we" and "us" Paul is referring to in Romans 5 are the elect of God.
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
WarriorAngel said:
Then your question was not concise enough. :wave:

YOU said does HEAVEN have FREE WILL.?..and no matter what being resides there aside from God, they will have free will.

I am sure free will is always and never ending.

So the Saints or even Mary in heaven could choose to sin?
The Saints in heaven could refuse to worship God?
Folks in heaven can opt to leave?


What does onbe do when they commit a mortal sin in heave? Who hears the confession? A venial sin? A quick road trip to purgatory?

And the will in heaven is just like here.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,052
9,491
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟481,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
drstevej said:
So the Saints or even Mary in heaven could choose to sin?
The Saints in heaven could refuse to worship God?
Folks in heaven can opt to leave?


What does onbe do when they commit a mortal sin in heave? Who hears the confession? A venial sin? A quick road trip to purgatory?

And the will in heaven is just like here.

The difference becomes .....when we make it to Heaven, we become 'like' God.

Not God mind you, but like Him.

And God is all good. So we become all good and totally sinless.

The angels can become prideful and choose to be envious of the high seat of the Saints...who will judge the nations BTW...;)
But they are in HEAVEN and may choose to sin or not.

Remember the FIRST universal sin was from a Heavenly creature, who took on pride.

His sin was worse by far because he knew God.

ALSO, when a being sins in Heaven they will probably be struck down like satan was...with a bolt of lightening.

WE know little about Heaven, but we do know that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise..... without sin. They took sin upon themselves. Free will as well.

And there will be no need for confessions, because in Heaven knowing God as Lucifer did, we can no longer repent.

I dare say that no one who is 'like' God will fall from the grace...but then again, I do not know. And we are not told.

BUT YOU asked if there was free will IN Heaven...and I answered.

You are trying to change the subject and or trip me, but even Christ did not elaborate on Heaven.

So will Saints be able to refuse God.....I am going to say probably.... but Heaven is mysterious.



 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
WarriorAngel said:
The difference becomes .....when we make it to Heaven, we become 'like' God.

Not God mind you, but like Him.

And God is all good. So we become all good and totally sinless.


So if we in glorfication become sinless. So is our will then free only to good? If we are "like Him" I would think that is the case.

And if so, then we are free only to good. But that is the precise parallel to my point about the unregenerate who are free only to evil.


ALSO, when a being sins in Heaven they will probably be struck down like satan was...with a bolt of lightening.

And so even Mary hypothetically might be struck down from heaven. Peter might be struck down from Heaven? Wow. That's a wild thought!




So will Saints be able to refuse God.....I am going to say probably.... but Heaven is mysterious.

Better retreat into mystery cause your "probably" is might wobbly.

Now, in my view none of the saints can sin in heaven but consistently and openly worship and obey Him. They are free only to good, even ans the unregenerate are free only to reject God and spurn Him.
 
Upvote 0

holdon

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2005
5,375
97
66
✟6,041.00
Faith
Christian
UMP said:
Please elaborate as to how Romans 5:8 refutes the text I posted?

BTW. The "we" and "us" Paul is referring to in Romans 5 are the elect of God.

Man, I thought I had explained that.

Clearly "we" and "us" were sinners when Christ died. Not even born yet, let alone born again. Anyway it says:
"still sinners".
So, the text says God demonstrates His love to those who were, like all, no difference, sinners.

The article however said:
"The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs."

Now, the bible says: God demonstrated His love to sinners, not saints.
The article says: "present it to the enemies of God" is wrong.
The bible says: God demonstrates His love, not only present, but "demonstrates", "exhibits", "commends" His love. And the bible says who it was for: while we were still sinners. Two verses later it says that those sinners were indeed: enemies.

Now, the allusion to taking the children's bread and cast it to the dogs is one that is taken from the gospels: Mt 15:26. And at once it betrays this author's misconception of the wide grace of God. Because the poor foreign woman recognizing her state, appeals to His grace and Jesus praises her for her faith. Now, this author Pink wants to infer that God's love extends not beyond the borders of Israel, or perhaps beyond the borders of his own theology. He is wrong!
For God so loved world....
 
Upvote 0

TruthMiner

Veteran
Mar 30, 2006
1,052
33
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
drstevej said:
[/color][/size][/font]

So if we in glorfication become sinless. So is our will then free only to good? If we are "like Him" I would think that is the case.

And if so, then we are free only to good. But that is the precise parallel to my point about the unregenerate who are free only to evil.


And thats why you are totally wrong. The unregenerate are quite free to do good. No good comes from humans of flesh. If you can comprehend what I just said, then you might get it right.
 
Upvote 0

UMP

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2004
5,022
116
✟5,772.00
Faith
Christian
holdon said:
Man, I thought I had explained that.

Clearly "we" and "us" were sinners when Christ died. Not even born yet, let alone born again. Anyway it says:
"still sinners".
So, the text says God demonstrates His love to those who were, like all, no difference, sinners.

The article however said:
"The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs."

Now, the bible says: God demonstrated His love to sinners, not saints.
The article says: "present it to the enemies of God" is wrong.
The bible says: God demonstrates His love, not only present, but "demonstrates", "exhibits", "commends" His love. And the bible says who it was for: while we were still sinners. Two verses later it says that those sinners were indeed: enemies.

Now, the allusion to taking the children's bread and cast it to the dogs is one that is taken from the gospels: Mt 15:26. And at once it betrays this author's misconception of the wide grace of God. Because the poor foreign woman recognizing her state, appeals to His grace and Jesus praises her for her faith. Now, this author Pink wants to infer that God's love extends not beyond the borders of Israel, or perhaps beyond the borders of his own theology. He is wrong!
For God so loved world....

In light of what you have just posted, please explain how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, before they were even born.

Romans 9:13
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Please do not say God looked down through time and knew Jacob would accept and Esau would not, for that is not the cause of the love, God's will (purpose) is and God ALONE.

[11] (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

[16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
 
Upvote 0

Lynn73

Jesus' lamb
Sep 15, 2003
6,035
362
69
Visit site
✟23,113.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
UMP said:
Here is the question.
Who will believe??
Those "ordained" by God will believe.
How many will believe ??
"As many as God ordained to eternal life"

Acts 13:
[48] And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


2Pe 3:9 - Show Context The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Does God contradict Himself? If He isn't willing for anyone to perish, then He cannot predestine someone to hell. I believe He has foreknowledge as to what someone will decide but He's contradicting Himself if he purposefully destines someone to hell without any choice on their part.
 
Upvote 0

UMP

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2004
5,022
116
✟5,772.00
Faith
Christian
Lynn73 said:
2Pe 3:9 - Show Context The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Who is Peter talking to here?
"Any" of what?
Who are the "all" and who are the "any" Peter is here talking about?
Who are the "us" talked about?

"Perhaps the one passage which has presented the greatest difficulty to those who have seen that passage after passage in Holy Writ plainly reaches the election of a limited number unto salvation is 2 Peter 3:9not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".
The first thing to be said upon the above passage is that, like all other scripture, it must be understood and interpreted in the light of its context. Surely it must be allowed by all that the first half of the verse needs to be taken into consideration. In order to establish what these words are supposed by many to mean, viz., that the words "any" and "all" are to be received without any qualification, it must be shown that the context is referring to the whole human race! If this cannot be shown, if there is no premise to justify this, then the conclusion also must be unwarranted. Let us then ponder the first part of the verse.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Note "promise" in the singular number, not "promises". What promise is in view? The promise of salvation? Where, in all Scripture, has God ever promised to save the whole human race!! Where indeed? No, the "promise" here referred to is not about salvation. What then is it? The context tells us.
"Knowing this... (vv. 3, 4). The context then refers to God's promise to send back His beloved Son. But many long centuries have passed, and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. True, but long as the delay may seem to us, the interval is short in the reckoning of God. As the proof of this we are reminded, "But, beloved.... (v.8) In God's reckoning of time, less than two days have passed since He promised to send back Christ.
But more, the "delay" in the Father sending back His beloved Son is not only due to no "slackness" on His part, but it is also occasioned by His "longsuffering". His longsuffering to whom? The verse we are now considering tells us: "but to longsuffering to usward". And whom are the "usward"? - the human race, or God's own people? In the light of this context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc" (v. 8). The "usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not "exercised", but "obtained" as God's sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument - the "usward" are the elect of God.
Let us now quote the verse as a whole: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) Could anything be clearer? The "any" that God is not willing should perish, are the "usward" to whom God is "longsuffering", the "beloved" of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God will not send back His Son until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25). God will not send back Christ till that "people" whom He is now "taking out of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him. Thank God for His "longsuffering to us-ward". Had Christ come back twenty years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not end until the last of the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are safely folded, - then will Christ return.

A. W Pink

Arminians insist that in 2 Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at larger, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in the preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgement, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "longsuffering to usward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."

L Boettner
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holdon

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2005
5,375
97
66
✟6,041.00
Faith
Christian
UMP said:
In light of what you have just posted, please explain how God loved Jacob and hated Esau, before they were even born.
God doesn't say that. You have been wrongly informed (or reformed?).

Here is are the verses:

9:11 the children indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls), 9:12 it was said to her, The greater shall serve the less: 9:13 according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau.
So, it does not say at all that "God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born". It simply says about their purpose before they were born: the greater shall serve the less. That's all. Scripture should be left in its intergrity.

The "I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau" is a quote from Malachi, hundreds of years later after both guys lived and has no allusion to God hating Esau before he was born.
 
Upvote 0

TruthMiner

Veteran
Mar 30, 2006
1,052
33
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
drstevej said:
Ephesians 2:4-6

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

======

If dead is dead...

[1] what's this free will biz ???

Its the really insane notion that we have the obvious ability to deliberate and choose between two or more options.

[2] you don't talk anyone back to life via apologetics.

that's right. You don't.

[3] spiritual life is not the result of human decision.

Yes it is. The decision to receive God's gift.

[4] spiritual life is a sovereign work of God!

Thats nice.

[5] it really is pure grace that saves, and we can not brag at all!


I don't know about you but I have never met anyone who bragged about deciding to receive a Christmas gift.

I guess this is where you forgot to ask yourself what sense Paul meant we were dead. As you might be aware, I have not been to my own funeral yet. Of course, the way you are using the term, you could be thinking that a corpse from the grave could be writing this message.
 
Upvote 0

holdon

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2005
5,375
97
66
✟6,041.00
Faith
Christian
UMP said:
Who is Peter talking to here?
"Any" of what?
Who are the "all" and who are the "any" Peter is here talking about?
Who are the "us" talked about?

The verse we are now considering tells us: "but to longsuffering to usward".
It is rather "you" than usward. See other translations.
And whom are the "usward"? - the human race, or God's own people? In the light of this context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc" (v. 8). The "usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not "exercised", but "obtained" as God's sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument - the "usward" are the elect of God.
Let us now quote the verse as a whole: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) Could anything be clearer? The "any" that God is not willing should perish,
Then that would go again the best part of RT doctrine namely that those who believe will not perish. As also says the bible in Jn 3:15,16.
are the "usward" to whom God is "longsuffering", the "beloved" of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God will not send back His Son until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25). God will not send back Christ till that "people" whom He is now "taking out of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him.
Wow! We got a dispensationalist here.
Thank God for His "longsuffering to us-ward". Had Christ come back twenty years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not end until the last of the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are safely folded, - then will Christ return.
Well, what is clear is that God is wanting that all come to repentance. If the elect could perish and not repent, that would, I think, go against RT doctrine. So, how are these verses to be understood? That God is long-suffering so that more will come to His wonderful light and be saved before He comes. That "elect" would be in danger of not repenting and perishing, is a strange inference indeed! So, the "any" cannot possibly be the elect.
 
Upvote 0

TruthMiner

Veteran
Mar 30, 2006
1,052
33
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
holdon said:
It is rather "you" than usward. See other translations. Then that would go again the best part of RT doctrine namely that those who believe will not perish. As also says the bible in Jn 3:15,16. Wow! We got a dispensationalist here. Well, what is clear is that God is wanting that all come to repentance. If the elect could perish and not repent, that would, I think, go against RT doctrine. So, how are these verses to be understood? That God is long-suffering so that more will come to His wonderful light and be saved before He comes. That "elect" would be in danger of not repenting and perishing, is a strange inference indeed! So, the "any" cannot possibly be the elect.

Yes I think you are right. I am going to get my pen and add the words "the elect" to this Bible verse right now.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all the elect to come to repentance.

Yes, that is much, much better. You know, improving on God's word is rather enjoyable now that I have tried it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holeinone

Saint Holeinone
May 9, 2005
1,743
60
85
✟9,752.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
drstevej said:
We are talking about free will in humans, not angels. Why must all beings be identical? Prove this assumption and then you point becomes relevant.

Until you prove the assumption that God has created all beings identical your mention of Lucifer is a red herring.

The topic is anthropology not angelology.

Is there HUMAN free will in heaven.... sheesh. :doh:
Lucifer does not have free will. So if that is her point it is moot
 
Upvote 0

Lynn73

Jesus' lamb
Sep 15, 2003
6,035
362
69
Visit site
✟23,113.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
UMP said:
Who is Peter talking to here?
"Any" of what?
Who are the "all" and who are the "any" Peter is here talking about?
Who are the "us" talked about?

"Perhaps the one passage which has presented the greatest difficulty to those who have seen that passage after passage in Holy Writ plainly reaches the election of a limited number unto salvation is 2 Peter 3:9not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".
The first thing to be said upon the above passage is that, like all other scripture, it must be understood and interpreted in the light of its context. Surely it must be allowed by all that the first half of the verse needs to be taken into consideration. In order to establish what these words are supposed by many to mean, viz., that the words "any" and "all" are to be received without any qualification, it must be shown that the context is referring to the whole human race! If this cannot be shown, if there is no premise to justify this, then the conclusion also must be unwarranted. Let us then ponder the first part of the verse.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Note "promise" in the singular number, not "promises". What promise is in view? The promise of salvation? Where, in all Scripture, has God ever promised to save the whole human race!! Where indeed? No, the "promise" here referred to is not about salvation. What then is it? The context tells us.
"Knowing this... (vv. 3, 4). The context then refers to God's promise to send back His beloved Son. But many long centuries have passed, and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. True, but long as the delay may seem to us, the interval is short in the reckoning of God. As the proof of this we are reminded, "But, beloved.... (v.8) In God's reckoning of time, less than two days have passed since He promised to send back Christ.
But more, the "delay" in the Father sending back His beloved Son is not only due to no "slackness" on His part, but it is also occasioned by His "longsuffering". His longsuffering to whom? The verse we are now considering tells us: "but to longsuffering to usward". And whom are the "usward"? - the human race, or God's own people? In the light of this context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc" (v. 8). The "usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not "exercised", but "obtained" as God's sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument - the "usward" are the elect of God.
Let us now quote the verse as a whole: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) Could anything be clearer? The "any" that God is not willing should perish, are the "usward" to whom God is "longsuffering", the "beloved" of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God will not send back His Son until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25). God will not send back Christ till that "people" whom He is now "taking out of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him. Thank God for His "longsuffering to us-ward". Had Christ come back twenty years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not end until the last of the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are safely folded, - then will Christ return.

A. W Pink

Arminians insist that in 2 Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at larger, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in the preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgement, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "longsuffering to usward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."

L Boettner

I think you're or Mr. Boettner there is making it much more complicated than it really is and reading things into the Scriptures. The verse doesn't say that all of US should come to repentence. You're adding the word "us." It says that all should come to repentence. At least in my Bible. I think God means just what He says, that He doesn't want anyone to perish.
 
Upvote 0

holeinone

Saint Holeinone
May 9, 2005
1,743
60
85
✟9,752.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Lynn73 said:
You predestined to heaven or hell people can twist it all you like to support your doctrine but it say God isn't willing than ANY perish. You are adding to His word and reading elect into the passage. It isn't there.

You have to read scripture in context sister.




Who was the letter sent to? Who was the audience?



2Pe 3:1** This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance

The beloved are the saved

So the letter is written to the saints.

What is it's topic?

It is a teaching to the church on the end times.


It is not a salvation teaching it is an end time teaching

What is the theme?

Judgment and destruction of the wicked


The passage in question begins with the remembrance of the first judgment on the world.


The Flood


** 2Pe 3:5** 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:

** * 2Pe 3:6** Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:



Here he is speaking of the judgment men by the flood.


The judgment theme continues ;




2Pe 3:7** 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.


Now he speaks of the type of judgment to come. no longer from rain and flood, but from fire.

Now again Peter restates who these words stating who they are written to, the saved brethren



2Pe 3:8* * But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.




It is a teaching for the elect . It is written TO THE BRETHREN NOT THE UNSAVED


Pe 3:9** The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Now in the text in question who is He long suffering toward? He says it clearly ..it is the audience that he is addressing ..The brethren..the elect..US-WARD

.God is long suffering . He will not rain down the punishment until all the elect are saved.


If we were to read the Arminian reading into the text the Lord could never return because there will never be a day when the entire creation of men will be saved.
So Christ could never come..He would be stuck in heaven waiting for men to make up their mind.


*Back to a judgment text :

* 2Pe 3:10** But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Referring back to 3:6 &7


The reading of the text as a salvation teaching or promise in the center of a text in the center of an end time teaching breaks the flow and meaning of a text that tells how God intends to judge the reprobates in the last days .


Your reading gives this text an impossible rendering .

Because it would be saying the judgment He has just taught could never occur ,because God is long suffering to ALL men WITHOUT EXCEPTION That makes is an impossible rendering of the text .
 
Upvote 0

holeinone

Saint Holeinone
May 9, 2005
1,743
60
85
✟9,752.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
WarriorAngel said:
The difference becomes .....when we make it to Heaven, we become 'like' God.

Not God mind you, but like Him.

And God is all good. So we become all good and totally sinless.

The angels can become prideful and choose to be envious of the high seat of the Saints...who will judge the nations BTW...;)
But they are in HEAVEN and may choose to sin or not.

Remember the FIRST universal sin was from a Heavenly creature, who took on pride.

His sin was worse by far because he knew God.

ALSO, when a being sins in Heaven they will probably be struck down like satan was...with a bolt of lightening.

WE know little about Heaven, but we do know that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise..... without sin. They took sin upon themselves. Free will as well.

And there will be no need for confessions, because in Heaven knowing God as Lucifer did, we can no longer repent.

I dare say that no one who is 'like' God will fall from the grace...but then again, I do not know. And we are not told.

BUT YOU asked if there was free will IN Heaven...and I answered.

You are trying to change the subject and or trip me, but even Christ did not elaborate on Heaven.

So will Saints be able to refuse God.....I am going to say probably.... but Heaven is mysterious.



Does God have free will?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holdon

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2005
5,375
97
66
✟6,041.00
Faith
Christian
holeinone said:


It is a teaching for the elect . It is written TO THE BRETHREN NOT THE UNSAVED
Why would "brethren" have to repent? Why would "brethren" be in danger of perishing.?
Now in the text in question who is He long suffering toward? He says it clearly ..it is the audience that he is addressing ..The brethren..the elect..US-WARD

.God is long suffering . He will not rain down the punishment until all the elect are saved.
That may be true. Is true. But that doesn't mean "perishing" souls are brethren or that non-repentant souls are brethren.
If we were to read the Arminian reading into the text the Lord could never return because there will never be a day when the entire creation of men will be saved.
I don't think any Arminian would say that "the entire creation of men will be saved".
So Christ could never come..He would be stuck in heaven waiting for men to make up their mind.
Therefore, this point is not a valid one.
Because it would be saying the judgment He has just taught could never occur ,because God is long suffering to ALL men WITHOUT EXCEPTION .
I really fail to see the logic. God is willing that all come to repentance and not that any perish. Why would that mean the judgment can never occur????

He is willing doesn't mean that it so happens: that all will repent and not perish. It means that He wants as many as possible to come. That's why He is long-suffering. But some day the period of grace will be over and judgment will come upon those who have not repented.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.