How can the grace of God be resisted by some yet received by others?

[Hammster]

Now tell us what you are driving at. 'Context, context, context' is a useless statement without your telling us the context you want us to understand.

2 Peter 3:1-13 (ESV) states:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (emphasis added).
​

What, in this context, demonstrates that the Lord does not wish ANY people to perish?

There is not a word here about what you, in your eisegesis, want it to mean: 'He desires none of the elect to perish'. That's as good a postmodern invention as I've read in quite a while.

Oz

The context is concerning who he is writing to. Skala has done a fine job explaining it. Better than I could.

 

[ToBeLoved]

MennoSota,

I notice that you have now edited out what you had originally written that stated, 'I love it when people quote 1 Peter 3 as a free will verse, because the context is exactly the opposite. 1 Peter 3:18 is entirely promoting limited atonement for God's chosen, adopted, children'.

So you should have deleted it because it is 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV) that states: 'The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance'.

Norman Geisler's comment on 2 Peter 3:9 is that:

The "any" and "all" are called upon to repent. Also, the "all" who need to repent cannot mean the "beloved," (vv. 1, 8), since they were already saved and in no need of repenting. In addition, this would mean that God is not calling on the non-elect to repent, which is clearly opposed to other Scriptures where "he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). "All people everywhere" does not mean "some people everywhere" or "some people somewhere." The text speaks for itself (1999. Chosen But Free, Bethany House Publishers, pp. 199-200).​

The idea that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world, all people everywhere, is not a biblical view. It must be rejected by those who believe the Bible.

Oz

They have real problems with the simplicity of God using "ALL", "ANY" and "EVERY". Seeming to think God does not know what He is saying.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The context is concerning who he is writing to. Skala has done a fine job explaining it. Better than I could.

Are you ignoring the Biblical proof, from the original Greek that shows Calvinism to be in error, or is God in error?

I can include the URL to BibleHub.com which is a Biblical resource with ALL versions of the Bible, as well as the original Greek and Hebrew, since you only have a phone, so you can study it for yourself.

 

[EmSw]

Scripture speaks of the elect. Peter addressed the elect. Context matters. Skala has explained it quite well in numerous posts. No need to add to that.

Since you play the 'predestination' lottery, I'm sure you hope He randomly chose your number to be elect. Since you have no say if you're elected or not, you have to play the waiting game to find out if He chose you or not.

Even if you're elected, I've shown He can change His predestination for everyone. His final predestination for you may be eternal damnation, but has temporarily chosen you to life. I hope that's okay with you, for will the pot talk back to the Potter?

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota,

The problems with your Calvinistic position include:

1. Your view contradicts Scripture, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2 ESV, emphasis added). So, Christ not only appeases the wrath of God (propitiation) for believers' sins but also 'for the sins of the whole world'. No matter how many twists and turns you give us, you can't get out of John's teaching that Jesus's propitiation is available for the sins of the whole world.
2. This does not teach universalism, but demonstrates the availability of God's propitiatory sacrifice (with the accompanying forgiveness-repentance) for all sinners in the entire world.
3. This highlights the Calvinistic brick wall that God can appease his wrath against ALL sinners through Christ's atonement, make salvation available to all (John 3:16), but individuals need to do as the Philippian jailer had to do in response to the message preached by Paul and Silas, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household'.

However, the possibility of your accepting that three-step view seems to be close to zero from what you've written here.

You state the exact problem with your argument: 'If God had atoned for all humanity and yet the majority go to hell, then either God is weak or He is unjust in condemning people for whom the price has been paid'.

This view is shipwrecked on the biblical grounds of God's providing atonement for all and the Gospel of 'whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16 ESV).

Biblical teaching is that God provides salvation that is available to everyone in the world but it is only experienced by those who place their faith in Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice/atonement (see Luke 8:12; John 20:31; Acts 16:31; and Romans 1:16; 10:9).

Can't you see that it is Calvinism that provides the insurmountable leap that is needed to avoided the exact teaching of Scripture? I am open to listening to your argument for this limited atonement view, but it crashes on the rocks of Scripture.

Oz

Oz, you miss the boat and fail to grasp the context of 1 John, while attempting a proof text for your pretext. Rather than type on my phone, I will provide a link so you can understand your errors.
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/11/understanding_1_john_22.php

 

[MennoSota]

Well let's look at this verse closer then.

In the Greek, the word for the 'unjust' used is

ἀδίκων,
adikōn
Strong's Concordance
adikos: unjust, unrighteous
Original Word: ἄδικος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: adikos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad'-ee-kos)
Short Definition: unjust, unrighteous
Definition: unjust, unrighteous, wicked.
http://biblehub.com/greek/adiko_n_94.htm
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 94 ádikos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A "no" and 1349 /díkē, "justice") – properly, without justice; unjust, because violating what God says is just; divinely disapproved. See 93 (adikia).

94/ádikos ("unjust") is injustice as a breach of divine justice, i.e. in violation of God's standards. 94 /ádikos ("unjust") describes being found guilty in God's court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution for disrespecting true justice.


This word, "adikon" has three occurances in the Greek New Testament. Used in the following verses:

ἀδίκων (adikōn) — 3 Occurrences

Acts 24:15
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
1 Corinthians 6:1
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:


So, it seems to me that you are wrong. Both Acts 24:15 as well as 1 Corinthians 6:1 clearly is using the word to refer to sinners that are not saints.

I look forward to your response if you disagree.

I have no idea why you are focusing in on the word "unjust."
Was Peter addressing Christians or pagans when he wrote his letter?

 

[OzSpen]

Scripture speaks of the elect. Peter addressed the elect. Context matters. Skala has explained it quite well in numerous posts. No need to add to that.

Hammster,

Scripture most certainly matters as it does in 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV), which states, 'he Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance'.

We know that 'any' and 'all' in 2 Pet 3:9 are called upon to not 'perish' and that they 'should reach repentance'.

However, the CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - your echo - of 2 Peter 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:8 speaks of the 'beloved' in both verses - beloved who are believers. Therefore, they are already saved and have no need to repent.

It is you who is inventing the meaning that Peter is addressing the elect when 2 Peter 3 demonstrates by the context of the chapter that 2 Peter 3:9 CANNOT be referring to the elect who now need repentance.

That's your Calvinistic invention. It's not found in the text.

Oz

 

[ToBeLoved]

I have no idea why you are focusing in on the word "unjust."
Was Peter addressing Christians or pagans when he wrote his letter?

Your point was that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect or saved. And I used 1 Peter 3:18 as a verse to refute that claim and state that Jesus conquered sin fully, died for all sin and has squashed sin like a grape. You then said your explanation of why you believed 1 Peter 3:18 supported your position that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. I then looked at the verse in the original Greek using the word that was used to describe the unsaved that Jesus died for, which is the Greek word "ἀδίκων, adikōn" showing you through two other verses where that same word is used in the Greek that Jesus death was for all mankind.

Now we are at the point where you are saying that you have no idea why I focused on the word 'unjust'.

With that post, I showed how it is obvious that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota,

I notice that you have now edited out what you had originally written that stated, 'I love it when people quote 1 Peter 3 as a free will verse, because the context is exactly the opposite. 1 Peter 3:18 is entirely promoting limited atonement for God's chosen, adopted, children'.

So you should have deleted it because it is 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV) that states: 'The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance'.

Norman Geisler's comment on 2 Peter 3:9 is that:

The "any" and "all" are called upon to repent. Also, the "all" who need to repent cannot mean the "beloved," (vv. 1, 8), since they were already saved and in no need of repenting. In addition, this would mean that God is not calling on the non-elect to repent, which is clearly opposed to other Scriptures where "he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). "All people everywhere" does not mean "some people everywhere" or "some people somewhere." The text speaks for itself (1999. Chosen But Free, Bethany House Publishers, pp. 199-200).​

The idea that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world, all people everywhere, is not a biblical view. It must be rejected by those who believe the Bible.

Oz

I don't know what you are talking about in regard to editing. The only thing I recall editing today was when my phone made a word "We're" instead of "Were."

As for your universalism, it is soundly rejected by the Bible at every turn.

Peter starts his letters calling his readers chosen as does Paul. John oozes with God's sovereign choice over whom He calls. John 3 is a fantastic passage regarding God's sovereign choice.

For every verse you pluck out of context, I can add five in their context that present God's sovereign choice.

When I see people arguing for choice, I see a human who is fighting with God for who will have control over their life. I spent over 25 years being a free will Christian. Then I read the Bible and saw how wrong I had been and how much it was about my desire to have control.
I relinquish control. God has saved me purely by His grace alone. I did nothing. I didn't choose Him. He chose me from before the foundations of the world. I am in deep gratitude and awe that He chose to make clean such a sinner as myself.

 

[MennoSota]

Hammster,

Scripture most certainly matters as it does in 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV), which states, 'he Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance'.

We know that 'any' and 'all' in 2 Pet 3:9 are called upon to not 'perish' and that they 'should reach repentance'.

However, the CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - your echo - of 2 Peter 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:8 speaks of the 'beloved' in both verses - beloved who are believers. Therefore, they are already saved and have no need to repent.

It is you who is inventing the meaning that Peter is addressing the elect when 2 Peter 3 demonstrates by the context of the chapter that 2 Peter 3:9 CANNOT be referring to the elect who now need repentance.

That's your Calvinistic invention. It's not found in the text.

Oz

What does 1 Peter 1:1 say?

1 Peter 1
[1]This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.I am writing to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Who is Peter writing to? Who did the choosing?

Thanks Oz.

 

[MennoSota]

Your point was that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect or saved. And I used 1 Peter 3:18 as a verse to refute that claim and state that Jesus conquered sin fully, died for all sin and has squashed sin like a grape. You then said your explanation of why you believed 1 Peter 3:18 supported your position that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. I then looked at the verse in the original Greek using the word that was used to describe the unsaved that Jesus died for, which is the Greek word "ἀδίκων, adikōn" showing you through two other verses where that same word is used in the Greek that Jesus death was for all mankind.

Now we are at the point where you are saying that you have no idea why I focused on the word 'unjust'.

With that post, I showed how it is obvious that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

I said Yeshua died for those whom he chose to save. Yeshua is just. We are unjust. We are thoroughly unclean rags without any virtue. Isn't it amazing that God would choose to forgive and clean even one person by Yeshua's sacrifice? Yet he has chosen to save many all by an undeserved grace and mercy. It is amazing.

 

[EmSw]

I don't know what you are talking about in regard to editing. The only thing I recall editing today was when my phone made a word "We're" instead of "Were."

As for your universalism, it is soundly rejected by the Bible at every turn.

Peter starts his letters calling his readers chosen as does Paul. John oozes with God's sovereign choice over whom He calls. John 3 is a fantastic passage regarding God's sovereign choice.

For every verse you pluck out of context, I can add five in their context that present God's sovereign choice.

When I see people arguing for choice, I see a human who is fighting with God for who will have control over their life. I spent over 25 years being a free will Christian. Then I read the Bible and saw how wrong I had been and how much it was about my desire to have control.
I relinquish control. God has saved me purely by His grace alone. I did nothing. I didn't choose Him. He chose me from before the foundations of the world. I am in deep gratitude and awe that He chose to make clean such a sinner as myself.

MennoSota, have you eaten His flesh and drunk His blood so that you have eternal life?

John 6:54
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one will control and force you to eat and drink. This is totally a choice you make. So, have you eaten His flesh and drunk His blood?

 

[Hammster]

They have real problems with the simplicity of God using "ALL", "ANY" and "EVERY". Seeming to think God does not know what He is saying.

The issue is thinking that all means every single one as opposed to all meaning all types. That's why context is important.

 

[Hammster]

Are you ignoring the Biblical proof, from the original Greek that shows Calvinism to be in error, or is God in error?

I can include the URL to BibleHub.com which is a Biblical resource with ALL versions of the Bible, as well as the original Greek and Hebrew, since you only have a phone, so you can study it for yourself.

I've studied plenty. In fact, if you go back to 2007, you can find me arguing against Calvinism. But my study of God's word and using passages instead of verses has opened my eyes to a much greater and richer truth.

 

[Hammster]

Since you play the 'predestination' lottery, I'm sure you hope He randomly chose your number to be elect. Since you have no say if you're elected or not, you have to play the waiting game to find out if He chose you or not.

Even if you're elected, I've shown He can change His predestination for everyone. His final predestination for you may be eternal damnation, but has temporarily chosen you to life. I hope that's okay with you, for will the pot talk back to the Potter?

It is.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

Scripture most certainly matters as it does in 2 Peter 3:9 (ESV), which states, 'he Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance'.

We know that 'any' and 'all' in 2 Pet 3:9 are called upon to not 'perish' and that they 'should reach repentance'.

However, the CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - your echo - of 2 Peter 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:8 speaks of the 'beloved' in both verses - beloved who are believers. Therefore, they are already saved and have no need to repent.

It is you who is inventing the meaning that Peter is addressing the elect when 2 Peter 3 demonstrates by the context of the chapter that 2 Peter 3:9 CANNOT be referring to the elect who now need repentance.

That's your Calvinistic invention. It's not found in the text.

Oz

It's been explained. You've rejected the explanation and have ignored the context. Not much more can be said.

 

[EmSw]

It is.

It's not.

 

[Hammster]

And I used 1 Peter 3:18 as a verse to refute that claim and state that Jesus conquered sin fully, died for all sin and has squashed sin like a grape.

Then what are people in hell suffering for? It's obviously not sin, if your understanding is correct.

 

[Hammster]

It's not.

Why not? Why am I not good with it?

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, you miss the boat and fail to grasp the context of 1 John, while attempting a proof text for your pretext. Rather than type on my phone, I will provide a link so you can understand your errors.
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/11/understanding_1_john_22.php

That's a false charge. You claim I fail to grasp the context but you give not one example of how that happened.

Please answer what I wrote instead of giving a link to a Calvinistic buddy.

Two Calvinists demonstrate that I did not 'miss the boat', but was spot on, in my assessment of your imposing Calvinism on a text that refutes Calvinistic limited atonement.

Ron Rhodes (a 4-point Calvinist who does not support limited atonement), wrote: '1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement' (The Extent of the Atonement).

Professor Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, wrote concerning 1 John 2:2:

When John says that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, author’s translation), he may simply be understood to mean that Christ is the atoning sacrifice that the gospel now makes available for the sins of everyone in the world. The preposition “for” (Gk. peri, plus genitive) is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation “for” the sins of the world. Peri simply means “concerning” or “with respect to” but is not specific enough to define the exact way in which Christ is the sacrifice with respect to the sins of the world. It would be entirely consistent with the language of the verse to think that John is simply saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of anyone in the world. Likewise, when Paul says that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6), we are to understand this to mean a ransom available for all people, without exception (Grudem 1994:598).​

Oz

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England / Grand Rapids, Michigan.: Inter-Varsity Press / Zondervan Publishing House.