A Biblical and Contextual Explanation of John 3:16, 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4.

[Skala]

From the point on Esau - I have read discussion from the standpoint that God hated Esau after Esau had practiced evil things and despised his heritage. One point of view is that if Esau had instead chosen to honor his heritage - then God would honor that choice.

Also - as I noted - I am struggling to understand what the purpose of witnessing would be if God has already chosen who will be saved or not.

But Romans 9 specifically said he chose Jacob over Esua without any respect to any good or evil they committed. In other words, God's choice was not based on the actions of men, but instead it was based on His own will and purpose.

As for "why witness if God chooses", the answer is simple:

God uses means to accomplish his ends. He doesn't just decree the end result, but he also decrees the means by which that end result happens.

It's not as if people who never hear the gospel and never put faith in Jesus will suddenly be saved on judgement day just because they were unknowingly part of God's elect. but rather, if they are part of God's elect, they will, sometime in their lives, hear the gospel and be brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[tall73]

You are a smart guy.

Keep your comments about my level of intelligence to yourself, whatever your view of them. I saw how you treated Blue, making fun of the way he said things. I am not interested in your take on people's intelligence.

I think you do see it but just can't admit it. You may not agree with it but you do see it.

BTW I am glad to hear your family is doing better.

Seriously no, I don't see it. When I saw it in 2 Peter 3 I said it right from the outset. The rest I see nothing whatsoever in the context to support your view, or I would have said it.

I don't see that him saying pray for all men, which you agree with, means something other than all men.

I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world, especially when he speaks to the lost nature of all the world without Christ, which you also agree with.

I don't even see you trying much to explain I Tim 2 itself, and you certainly didn't answer the various points I raised.

Now why did you complain about me only responding briefly to one of the texts, and then when I took the time to respond you didn't even consider the points made but just said that you know I really see your viewpoint anyway and just can't admit it?

This is your notion of better discussion? This is what you meant by having a fair approach? Someone responds point by point, and then you just say they didn't mean it anyway?

 

[twin1954]

Keep your comments about my level of intelligence to yourself, whatever your view of them. I saw how you treated Blue, making fun of the way he said things. I am not interested in your take on people's intelligence.

Seriously no, I don't see it. When I saw it in 2 Peter 3 I said it right from the outset. The rest I see nothing whatsoever in the context to support your view, or I would have said it.

I don't see that him saying pray for all men, which you agree with, means something other than all men.

I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world, especially when he speaks to the lost nature of all the world without Christ, which you also agree with.

I don't even see you trying much to explain I Tim 2 itself, and you certainly didn't answer the various points I raised.

Now why did you complain about me only responding briefly to one of the texts, and then when I took the time to respond you didn't even consider the points made but just said that you know I really see your viewpoint anyway and just can't admit it?

This is your notion of better discussion? This is what you meant by having a fair approach? Someone responds point by point, and then you just say they didn't mean it anyway?

I intend to get to them but I do have a life and responsibilities beyond an internet forum.

 

[tall73]

I intend to get to them but I do have a life and responsibilities beyond an internet forum.

I can understand time being an issue, as I expressed the same issue. I cannot understand you saying you think I see it when I said I didn't.

 

[Skala]

I don't see that him saying pray for all men, which you agree with, means something other than all men.

That's because you don't understand that the Greek word pas (which we translate "all", for example in the phrase "all men" has more than one definition, and the definition is determined by the context and information in the passage we find it in.
Observe:

Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

This shows you that pas has two definitions, one of which is "some of all types". The Greek experts even go out of their way to explain that it is often used as a figure of speech, but I digress.

Since Paul listed types of people, it is clear he was using this second definition of pas. (Some of all types). The point of his argument in said passage is to pray for kings, leaders, and those in authority (types of people) so that they will leave Christians alone so we can live and worship in peace. He is not urging his readers to bust out the phonebook and start at the A's and pray for each and every person in the human race all the way to the Z's.

Is Paul urging you to pray for your fellow Christian family members, so that they will leave you alone and not persecute you, so that you may worship in peace? Obviously not.

I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world,

That's because you fail to realize that kosmos (which we translate world) has over 10 definitions.

Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

The problem with your argument is that you are forcing your own definition of kosmos into the picture. When you said "I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world", what you really mean is "I don't see the world meaning anything other than every single human being in the human race from Adam to the last remaining human on earth"

It is you who is ignoring the rest of the definitions. It is you who is insisting that kosmos only means a single thing, all the time, in every single circumstance.

If you are the one that insists that pas and kosmos always means just one particular definition, then the onus is on you to defend that position. You can't just ignore the other definitions and the fact that Bible authors used them quite frequently.

 

[tall73]

That's because you don't understand that the Greek word pas (which we translate "all", for example in the phrase "all men" has more than one definition, and the definition is determined by the context and information in the passage we find it in.
Observe:

How is it you claim to know my level of knowledge in regards to a particular Greek word?

Twin had made it clear he thought Greek arguments solve nothing. So I did not present him such an argument. But so that you can receive your answer, we can talk about it.

Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

This shows you that pas has two definitions, one of which is "some of all types". The Greek experts even go out of their way to explain that it is often used as a figure of speech, but I digress.

Since Paul listed types of people, it is clear he was using this second definition of pas. (Some of all types). The point of his argument in said passage is to pray for kings, leaders, and those in authority (types of people) so that they will leave Christians alone so we can live and worship in peace. He is not urging his readers to bust out the phonebook and start at the A's and pray for each and every person in the human race all the way to the Z's.

The entry you quoted listed two of the usages of the term. There are actually more ways it is used, depending on the substantive it is used with, the presence of the article etc. Check the extensive Thayers listing here for more information.

Also note that he groups together texts which use the term with anthropos in the plural under the first of your meanings, all men, not the second, all types of men.

Strong's Greek: 3956. πᾶς (pas) -- all, every


Now context does play a large role. However, here again you are not helped. I Timothy 2 does not make a comprehensive listing of various types of men. He simply says pray for all men. Then he says and for kings, and those in authority. Why? As you indicated, because the kings in particular have power to keep the message from all men. If he had intended to list all men, why not list high, low, Greek, Jew?

We know Paul is familiar with how to make such a list, ie . neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free

As for praying through the phone book, many see this as a call to corporate prayer in assembly (including Calvin), and there prayer might indeed be made for all men, if not individually, then all men as a group. However we may also pray for all men, and certainly all men we know.

Now had Paul wanted to make it very clear that he meant all types of men, and that he did not mean to pray for every man, he had a phrase at his disposal.

Note the usage in the LXX of Daniel


Dan 3:5 ᾗ ἂν ὥρᾳ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς τῆς σάλπιγγος σύριγγός τε καὶ κιθάρας, σαμβύκης καὶ ψαλτηρίου καὶ συμφωνίας καὶ παντὸς γένους μουσικῶν, πίπτοντες προσκυνεῖτε τῇ εἰκόνι τῇ χρυσῇ, ᾗ ἔστησεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεύς·

Dan 3:5 at what hour ye shall hear the sound of the trumpet, and pipe, and harp, and sackbut, and psaltery, and every kind of music, ye shall fall down and worship the golden image which king Nebachednezzer has set up. Brenton's LXX translation

This usage of "kinds" continued into NT times:

Mat 13:47 Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν σαγήνῃ βληθείσῃ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἐκ παντὸς γένους συναγαγούσῃ·

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

Paul likewises speaks of various "kinds" of tongues.

So we know he was familiar with this usage.



Moreover, I could find no translation that supports your reading, showing that the translators must not have been convinced by your reading of the context:

New American Standard Version
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

King James Version
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

New International Version
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—

Holman Christian Standard
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone,

New Living Translation
I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. As you make your requests, plead for God's mercy upon them, and give thanks.

Good News Translation
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, requests, and thanksgivings be offered to God for all people;

New King James
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,

English Standard Version
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,

Revised Standard Version
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,

Young's Literal Translation
I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men:

American Standard Version
I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men;

 

[tall73]

You also ignored the phrase about Jesus being the mediator between God and men.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Here there is no way to take it for anything other than it is, a reference to all of mankind.

And it stands between the two disputed clauses:

Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


For there is one mediator, continues the thought of who will have all men to be saved.

It then references mankind in general

then goes on to say he is the ransom for all.

All what? All people.

This is a usage of the adjective without a substantive. Or to say it another way, it acts as a substantive. Note how Thayer renders that usage:

without a substantive; 1. masculine and feminine every one, any one


So no, even when looking at the Greek word for "all" I still do not find it convincing. And apparently neither did the translation committees.

 

[tall73]

That's because you fail to realize that kosmos (which we translate world) has over 10 definitions.

It is still a mystery how you would have any first hand knowledge about my degree of familiarity with the word.

Ironically, apart from reading the word in various contexts over the years, I just heard a sermon this past Sunday that related additional aspects of the word, as incidental to the rest of the message. (It was Not any Soteriological polemic).
So there is no reason to assume what others know or do not know.

Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

The problem with your argument is that you are forcing your own definition of kosmos into the picture. When you said "I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world", what you really mean is "I don't see the world meaning anything other than every single human being in the human race from Adam to the last remaining human on earth"

Actually that would be incorrect as to my take on the term.

For instance, the usage in I John 2 is certainly a different meaning:

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Here loving the world has a negative connotation, and the world has primarily reference to worldly values, things, etc.

Now where did I say in the thread that the term always mean all the people every time it is used? I did not. I said in this passage I don't see world meaning anything other than the world, as in rejecting a notion that reduces it to something containing smaller groups of people, etc.

In order to make it seem that I was saying it of all contexts you quoted half of my sentence. Yet the response I made showed it clear I was speaking of this context. And that was the point of the response anyway, as Twin was asserting I really thought his take was possible in THIS context. Here is what I said:

I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world, especially when he speaks to the lost nature of all the world without Christ, which you also agree with.

You shortened it to:

I don't see the world meaning anything other than the world,

And then tried to say I meant this for every context, which I did not allege.


By the way, the resource you quote says it is based on Thayers, but it barely resembles the larger version:

Strong's Greek: 2889. κόσμος (kosmos) -- order, the world

Scroll down on that page to see the longer version.

It is you who is ignoring the rest of the definitions. It is you who is insisting that kosmos only means a single thing, all the time, in every single circumstance.

Where did I say that? Where did I say that in every single circumstance it is the same? I said it is clear what it means in this context. And where is your suggestion of which of the various meanings actually is meant here?

 

[tall73]

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

That the people of the world are at least in view here is clear from a few things:


1. The context of the verse is a discussion with Nicodemus about the need of PEOPLE being born again, not an abstract discussion of the cosmos, the actual sphere of the world, or several other of the uses of Kosmos.

2.For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, is again a thought leading form the previous one, hence the connecting term "for".
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life
God's love for the world is tied to the thought that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish. It is tied to people, and His love for them.

3. The following argument again speaks of the world in terms of the people in it:
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


What is it that was condemned? People. People who do not believe are condemned already. And I am quite sure you agree with that, and would not apply it to anything less than every person in the world.

Now which of the other definitions of Kosmos would you use here, and what is your evidence?

 

[twin1954]

I can understand time being an issue, as I expressed the same issue. I cannot understand you saying you think I see it when I said I didn't.

I have no doubt that you see and understand my reasoning for my conclusions. You wouldn't be arguing against them if you didn't. Seeing my reasoning is not the same as agreeing with it. You may not see the things that I see in the passage, as you claim, but you do understand why I see them.

 

[twin1954]

Twin1954, I would imagine, from your statements, you would reject John 3:16 of the NET saying, "For this is the way God loved the world...". Even if I grant you it expresses how much God loved the world, that doesn't even resolve your second point about the Pharisee. Show me in the Jewish law where God had not chosen the Jews above the rest of the world? At what point did the Jewish law cease to be valid? Yes, the Pharisees were the ones making laws on top of laws to keep them from breaking the laws of Moses, but its certainly understandable since their desire was to keep Jews obeying the law, though for the wrong reason, because if they didn't they would run back to the gods of the nations.

Am I off?

The Jews were a typical people. Paul makes this very clear in Rom. 2:28,29. They were the chosen nation but they were not the chosen people. 1Pet. 2:9 The Israel of God is a spiritual people made up of all the elect of God from both Jew and Gentile. Gal. 5:16, Eph. 2:13-22

God set them apart in order to point to and picture the spiritual fact that He has an elect people who are the objects of His wondrous love, grace and mercy in Christ.

 

[twin1954]

I will address the specific people mentioned shortly. In the meantime I think the thought that Jesus was the ransom for all is a rather important thing to leave out if your goal is to address the text.


And it is especially questionable to leave out the reference to Christ's role as mediator between God and men, as it makes it pretty plain that this is speaking of mankind in general, and makes it rather hard to limit.

I disagree. When you understand that Paul was setting the meaning of who he was talking about in verses 1-3 then those verses that follow fall into place clearly. They don't need to be argued against. None of the passage needs to be argued against in fact. It is a simple matter of context especially when you apply the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole to your interpretation of them. The problem only arises when passages of Scripture are taken by themselves without consideration of the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole. It is no great difficulty to take certain passages that are worded in such a way as to prove your presupposition and then use them to prove it. It is something altogether different and more work involved to understand those same passages according to the whole of the Book.

 

[twin1954]

I thought the goal here was to examine it in its context. It turns out you already dismissed the possibility of it meaning exactly what it says from the outset.

The text says all men. It doesn't anywhere say only some men.

See my above post for the answer to this.

 

[twin1954]

Might be fun. But as to appeasing a forum, no one forces you to post here. post what you want. If your view of will allows for it.


Yes, I can see you would never do that by your statement:
And this statement:

The major part of your answer on I Tim. 2 WAS to refer to other verses without discussing the context, or in most cases, even citing the reference!

Now, we both agree that God knows our every thought, but you don't. So speculation about whether someone is just trying to win a debate is not helpful.

It is not just a debate to me. I have a view I have traditionally held, but can not make either view make sense from all the texts, as I already mentioned. And I am rather concerned that a lot of other scholars have not been able to either. It doesn't sit well with me that there appear to be almost two different views presented.

I already left the denomination I grew up in. I am currently in an American Baptist congregation. But I don't have any denomination to defend. I am just trying to figure it out. However, I don't intend to look at spin and have to call it legitimate when I don't think it is.

What you call spin I would call interpreting the Scriptures according to the Scriptures. The fact is that the free will side of the argument has as much "spin" and presupposition as our side. To reconcile the differing views we need to recognize what our presuppositions are and then lay them aside the Scriptures as a whole and let go of those that do not line up with the Scriptures.

Free will is the default presupposition of all men by nature. But what we naturally think concerning spiritual things is always wrong.

I have no denomination or creed to defend either. I am a Baptist because I believe what the Baptists have historically held to yet disagree with what most modern Baptists ascribe to concerning soteriology. I am not Reformed either because I disagree with some Reformed doctrines as well. Nor am I a technical Calvinist as I disagree with John Calvin on many issues. I am defending nothing but what I am convinced by the Spirit, according to the light given me as a man called of God to preach and teach His Word, is the truth of God according the Scriptures. I have no hobbyhorse to ride nor am I trying to convince anyone. I am only telling what I am convinced is truth take it or leave it.

As far as not giving the references in my explanation I left them off because the post had already become far too long and I am aware that most folks do not read long posts. I can give them to you if you if you desire but there will be quite a few as you probably already know. What is the point of posting something that few if any will read anyway.

 

[twin1954]

Well let's look at that context:

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.


First He references the bronze serpent in the wilderness :

Num 21:8 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So the passage is in fact not only just a lesson about how much God loves, but the dynamics of God's plan to save people

God doesn't have a plan. Show me anywhere in the Scriptures that says God has a plan. Instead they say that He has a purpose. They are two different things. A plan is something that can be foiled and may or may not come about. But a purpose is something that is intentionally worked toward and brought to fruition.

Still I have no problem with the reference of the Brazen Serpent in the Wilderness. All who looked were healed of the bite of the fiery serpents. That says nothing about a plan but it does clearly show what faith is. I do not have a problem with whoseoever either. All, as in everyone, who look to Christ will be saved. Whosever will is not a problem. Those who wiil do so because they have a need. Those who don't have a need will not.

The question then becomes how is it that some have a need and others do not?

The serpent was lifted up and those who looked to it were saved. Christ would be lifted up and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life.

Why would you think that I have a problem with this? Is it because you are viewing my stance based on a straw man?

Now that He has indicated that it is looking on the Son in belief that saves

We have another disagreement here. Faith doesn't save us Christ does. Faith is the conduit or medium through which salvation is brought to us. That is part of why your position makes salvation a work. If faith saves us then it is a work.

He shows the scope of this:

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


The terms whoever are not ambiguous. The term world does indeed take Nicodemus beyond his possible prejudices, to include not just gentiles, but even the lowly people he might consider sinners among the Israelites. That is the point....all the world. God loves them all. God offers the chance for all to look to His Son and be saved.

Again I would point out that salvation is never presented as an offer but a gift. Again I would also point out that it isn't anywhere intimated in the passage that He means all the people in the world. Moreover if, as you claim, that God loves all people in the world then what good is His love? So many that He loves perish in everlasting torment. What kind of love is it that does not, when able to do so, bring the very best to the object of love? You are again reading into the passage your presupposition.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Now surely the Calvinist would agree He is speaking of the whole world when it talks about those who do not believe and are already condemned. Surely you believe that extended to every person. But it is the same world that is being offered salvation. The offer of salvation extends as far as the description of the already condemned.

Why must it be that He is speaking of every person in the world? Surely you must acknowledge that He makes a distinct difference between people. The world in this context in no way must mean all people. Rather it is used in a general sense representing a part of the whole as distinguished from the whole. He makes the distinction so it isn't a stretch at all. Once more you are inserting your presupposition into the text.

No where did Christ limit who He was talking about here. The whole world started out condemned by sin, and the whole world was giving a choice to look to the Son and believe, and be saved.

The Lord Jesus wasn't giving everyone a "chance to be saved" He was showing the distinction between those who are saved and those who aren't.

Also, Jesus makes a subtle appeal to Nicodemus:

Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

It wasn't so subtle nor was it an appeal. Again He is making a distinction between the saved and the lost.

I should probably ask the questions that we should ask of all texts( who, what, why) but this post would become far too long. I will leave it to you to ask those questions.

Suffice to say that if your view of the text is correct then salvation is by works. If the Lord Jesus is appealing to Nicodemus to come to the light so that his works can be shown to be of God He telling Nicodemus that his works are what he can be saved by. Moreover if how you interpret the text is true then Nicodemus would have understood that salvation is by works as he already believed that it was. If what you say is true then the Lord was appealing to Nicodemus to do something which, of course, would be a work.

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. It was not until he saw Jesus lifted up that He came into the light and took his stand for Christ while even the disciples were running scared.

Could it be that he didn't come to that knowledge until he was given the light to grasp what was going on. Like the thief who was crucified on the side of Jesus how did he come to know what he told the other thief? Was it something he figured out by his natural intellect or was it given to him?

Apparently He thought that Nicodemus had a choice to make, because he was one of the people of the world.

As I have shown that isn't the case nor is it the necessary conclusion or interpretation of the passage.

 

[twin1954]

I will try to get to your other responses to me when I can.

 

[Bluelion]

A Biblical and Contextual Explanation of John 3:16, 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4.




These are the three passages of the Scriptures most used by free-will works religionists as arrows to strike at the heart of Calvinism. Though they have been answered more than can be counted they are still shot at us as though we cannot explain them or give a Biblical response to them.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:16)

The first thing I would point out to all honest folks is that the passage isn’t as much about who God loves as it is about how much He loves. The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t teaching Nicodemus about who God loves (though that is part of what He was teaching) as much as He was teaching him how much God loves. God loves so very much that He has given His well beloved Son to stand under the wrath of a just and holy God as the sinners substitute. God’s darling Son loved us and gave Himself for us to redeem us from our sin and satisfy the justice and law of God, which was against us, nailing our sin to His cross, shedding His precious blood for us and dying in our place as a condemned sinner. This is the main point of Christ’s message to this Pharisee. To overlook this point is to misunderstand and misuse the passage.

Secondly we must get the context of the passage to actually understand the passage.
The Lord Jesus Christ was not just talking to a common Jew but to a Pharisee. The Pharisees were the most outwardly holy and educated in the Scriptures of all the sects of the Jews. They would not defile themselves in any way if they could prevent it. They had added many traditions to the Law in order to appear more holy than all others. One of the things that they would do is to not be near a Gentile lest they be defiled by him. Their view was that God only loved Jews.
When the Lord Jesus told this Pharisee that God loved the world He was telling him that God doesn’t just love Jews. He wasn’t telling him that God loves every person in the world ,that would be against both the teaching of the Scriptures and the Jews understanding, but that He loves Gentiles as well as Jews. Nicodemus would have understood this.
To make the passage mean that the Lord was teaching that God loves every person in the world is to misunderstand the passage in its context and to misuse it in its teaching.

2Peter 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.
(2Pe 3:9)

Honesty demands that we understand this passage according to its context and that we ask of it two questions.
The context, of course, is Peter seeking to give instruction and comfort to the people of God concerning the coming of the Lord. Peter was determined to convince and comfort the people to whom he was writing to not be concerned with those who doubted the coming of the Lord. Don’t listen to them was his admonition. He did so by pointing them to the promise that Christ would return and that our view of time is not God’s view of time. He was telling them that Christ would not return until He had brought to fruition all that He had purposed. Which brings us to the two questions we must ask of the passage.
The questions are who are the “us” in the verse and who are the “any”? We must answer these questions to properly grasp the meaning and truly interpret the verse. Without answering those questions we can make the verse say what we think it ought to say, as it is so often used, instead of what it actually says.
To answer the question of who are the “us” we must look to whom the Apostle is writing the letter. He is writing to believers of course. He is not writing to or about unbelievers and to apply the verse as though he were is blatant dishonesty with the Scriptures. Every New Testament letter, with the possible exception of Hebrews, is written to believers not unbelievers. In every case the word “us” is referring to believers.
The question of who are the “any” in the verse must refer to the “us” which the writer is speaking to. Common sense requires that we recognize that the words “any” and “all”, the Greek word pas, must have a qualifier. Any and all must refer to something or someone. It is incumbent on us to determine what or whom the words refer. We simply cannot apply the words to whatever we desire them to refer to. The answer is always found in the context. If I say “any” or “all” without qualifying to whom I refer you cannot grasp my meaning. I could be referring to any or all dogs, mountains, trees or a myriad of other things or people. The context or a clear reference is required to establish what is meant.
Therefore we must understand and interpret the verse in question to refer to the “us” previously used in the verse. Peter is simply saying that God is not willing that any of us perish. To apply it to mean “all” men without exception is to take the verse out of its context and to be dishonest with its clear and unmistakable meaning.

1Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(1Ti 2:4)

Once more context is key in understanding the verse given. Verses one through three give us that context.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(1Ti 2:1-3)

To interpret this 1Timothy 2:4 as though Paul intends to teach that God would have all men without exception to be saved is to deny the whole of the teaching of Paul in almost every other of his letters. Paul writes, by the inspiration of the Spirit, in almost all his letters against such a view. So how do we interpret and understand the verse?

It is clear from verses one through three that Paul intends for us to understand that he means all kinds of men not all men without exception. He instructs us to pray for kings and all that are in authority. He is telling us to pray for high and low. He is in no way telling us that God desires the salvation of all men without exception.


Now that you have taken the time to read this I expect that you can at least understand that the Calvinist position on these passages are legitimate and clear. That certainly doesn’t mean that you must agree with the explanations but that you acknowledge that there are legitimate explanations. So since this is true, to continue to throw them out as though they have no legitimate interpretation other than yours is to be dishonest with both the Scriptures and those whom you would argue against. Be honest when you debate and no longer just throw out a passage of Scripture as though it strikes at the heart of your opponents argument without giving the context and meaning in an honest manner.

1st does not address the "whosoever".

2nd part if peter meant only the chosen one as you claim, why would God say such a thing as this imply God loses His children which John 6 says He does not. SO you just contradicted one of your Calvinist thoughts That Is once saved always saved which I believe. SO If God does not lose His children as stated in John 6 then why would God say He was unwilling for them to parish, oh you will say God was saying he would not let them, but that is not what its says. I can hear that spirit to, its not Holy. God would not need to say He was unwilling if none would perish, such a statement implies God's will will not be perfectly done, and why because man has free will to chose and God does not interfere with that.

2Peter 3:8-9 NLT

8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

So its clear you reject the NLT version.

2 peter 3:8-9 NASB(which is the most literal translation btw)

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 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 to come to repentance.

Ok so you reject the NASB

2 peter 3:8-9NKJV

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

He does speak of us, those saved but also speaks of the unsaved,"any"

So you reject the NKJV.

2peter 3:8-9

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.

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.

so you say all and any is not reffering to the unsaved you are wrong plan and simple so you reject the KJV.

Lets put it in context.

2 Peter 2 NASB

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

The master who bought them. If the Blood of Jesus did not buy all then who will be destroy? So we see in putting it in context you have scriputre which contradicts its self, John 6 It is the will of God that I(jesus) not lose one of all He gave me. But the bible does not do that. So there must be an error in your understanding. Not in the Bible of the Writing.

Do you know how to put chapters in the Bible in context have you been taught? You read the chapter before and the one after and then the chapter you are trying to understand.

let see what else we find.

2 Peter 2:20 NASB

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 [h]It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

see the part in bold , God is speaking of Knowing the way is Jesus and rejecting God, but wait you say a person can not reject grace, Here God says they can, why say such a thing.

So 2 Peter 2 is all about un believers, so we can not look at chapter 4 as there is no so lets look at 3 again.


So the first part is speaking again of unbelievers and then the end is to the faithful.

The "context" is explaining why God does not end it all ready and the reason is given in 8-9 He does not want any to perish, meaning anyone "unbelievers", you could not possibly get another meaning from that when it is put in context.


Its you pulling it out of context. I just picked peter but really you never made it past John 3:16

 

[twin1954]

1st does not address the "whosoever".

2nd part if peter meant only the chosen one as you claim, why would God say such a thing as this imply God loses His children which John 6 says He does not. SO you just contradicted one of your Calvinist thoughts That Is once saved always saved which I believe. SO If God does not lose His children as stated in John 6 then why would God say He was unwilling for them to parish, oh you will say God was saying he would not let them, but that is not what its says. I can hear that spirit to, its not Holy. God would not need to say He was unwilling if none would perish, such a statement implies God's will will not be perfectly done, and why because man has free will to chose and God does not interfere with that.

2Peter 3:8-9 NLT

8 But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.

So its clear you reject the NLT version.

2 peter 3:8-9 NASB(which is the most literal translation btw)

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 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 to come to repentance.

Ok so you reject the NASB

2 peter 3:8-9NKJV

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

He does speak of us, those saved but also speaks of the unsaved,"any"

So you reject the NKJV.

2peter 3:8-9

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.

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.

so you say all and any is not reffering to the unsaved you are wrong plan and simple so you reject the KJV.

Lets put it in context.

2 Peter 2 NASB

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

The master who bought them. If the Blood of Jesus did not buy all then who will be destroy? So we see in putting it in context you have scriputre which contradicts its self, John 6 It is the will of God that I(jesus) not lose one of all He gave me. But the bible does not do that. So there must be an error in your understanding. Not in the Bible of the Writing.

Do you know how to put chapters in the Bible in context have you been taught? You read the chapter before and the one after and then the chapter you are trying to understand.

let see what else we find.

2 Peter 2:20 NASB

20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 [h]It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

see the part in bold , God is speaking of Knowing the way is Jesus and rejecting God, but wait you say a person can not reject grace, Here God says they can, why say such a thing.

So 2 Peter 2 is all about un believers, so we can not look at chapter 4 as there is no so lets look at 3 again.


So the first part is speaking again of unbelievers and then the end is to the faithful.

The "context" is explaining why God does not end it all ready and the reason is given in 8-9 He does not want any to perish, meaning anyone "unbelievers", you could not possibly get another meaning from that when it is put in context.


Its you pulling it out of context. I just picked peter but really you never made it past John 3:16

I just spent an hour destroying your false assertions and assumptions and with one misled finger lost it all. (I know better than to respond to a long post in any other format than Word) so I will get back to you later.

 

[Bluelion]

I just spent an hour destroying your false assertions and assumptions and with one misled finger lost it all. (I know better than to respond to a long post in any other format than Word) so I will get back to you later.

How convenient.

 

[twin1954]

How convenient.

I will get back to it you can bet on it