2 Peter 3:9. 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.
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
2 Peter 3:9. 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.
Not as big a problem as you may think, if you look at the passage in context and use proper grammar. First question for you to think about...and I do want you to think about it, so I won't be giving you a direct answer...who is Peter addressing in this passage?
(No kibbitzing, people!!)
Please, please, may I kibbitz ? !!
2 Peter 3:9. “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.”
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.
Um.................No.............. Actually the text quoted affirms Calvanism.
2 Peter 3:9. 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.
2 Peter 3:9. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9. “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.”
If all Peter meant when he said "all" was only his believing readers, then wouldn't he be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance? Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet?
.You're real close here....except that the 'all' to which Peter is referring that God is not willing to perish is not just his believing contemporary readers, but also to the elect down through the ages who have not yet believed. That would include you and me! As you pointed out, elect is not necessarily synonomous with believer at any given time. The elect still need to be brought to repentance before they are believers
Now it can be said that "not all of the elect are believers, but that is entirely irrelevant to the issues of this passage. We must keep in mind that Peter is writing to the elect, and the elect here are people that have already obtained precious faith? Not just in the unseen eternal realm waiting to affect them in some pre-appointed time, but in the temporal seen realm, where Peter is talking about those who were at that time, believers. So to you, you say that it is these people that God is longsuffering towards. Why is He longsuffering towards them? The answer is revealed, and Scripture isn't silent on this matter where we can come up with ideas filling in the blank with such answers as evangelism to the lost. No, the answer is because God is not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. If all Peter meant when he said "all" was only his believing readers, then wouldn't he be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance? Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet?
Finally, Peter in this epistle doesn't even mention the word "elect" so it is clear he has no such idea in this epistle of anything about God chosen individuals God is going to save.
.
Presuming that this would be your next move so to speak, I wrote the following: (perhaps you missed it or overlooked it)
I simply don't think your basic premise fits the context...that Peter is only including believers alive in his time when he says all and us.
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.
Well that's tautology for ya. No one understands outside their understanding. You're not free of this tautology, are you? =chuckle=It appears to me that you and those in your camp interperet this Scripture through the lense of their presuppositions.
Well it's consistent to me.On the contrary, I simply don't think that your basic premise is consistent with the context and Peter's intending meaning. In fact, I think it is a departure from it.
While Mr. Pink is going to exposit on a valid theology, it takes no doctrine of election to carry the argument. I've limited this posting to the argument as it exists without an election doctrine.This argument rests very largely on the assumption that God's will is always done. Thus, God only wants the elect to repent, because only they actually do repent. The starting premise is merely a Calvinistic assumption--and not a particularly defensible one from scripture.
Well yes, someone can be a believer when they haven't even become a believer yet. That's what writing is all about: writing to the future, as well as to another. When the group spans time and someone will be a believer, God is unwilling for that believer to perish but to come to repentance. In time that person will "have obtained a faith of equal standing".wouldn't he be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance? Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet?
There are going to be public responses to public postings. Especially on this forum.Please do not respond to this post. I am not finished as it needs to be revised AND more added to it. So please be patient.
It appears to me that you and those in your camp interperet this Scripture through the lense of their presuppositions. (Whether they are accurate as Scripture is a different issue both entirely and all together). On the contrary, I simply don't think that your basic premise is consistent with the context and Peter's intending meaning. In fact, I think it is a departure from it.
For example, as Mr. Pink says:
We can see that Mr Pink says the usward and beloved of God are those who have (past tense) obtainted faith. Sense the term "believers" and "the redeemed" "and the church" and "the elect" can as be used to described Christians, Calvinist
This argument rests very largely on the assumption that God's will is always done. Thus, God only wants the elect to repent, because only they actually do repent. The starting premise is merely a Calvinistic assumption--and not a particularly defensible one from scripture.
The Arminian interpretation of this verse does no violence to any of the rules of English or Greek, does not ignore context, and is not threatened by the desperate statements of Calvinists to the contrary.
The Calvinist consistently takes references to contemporary believers (e.g., the ones addressed by Peter) and, without warrant, pretends that this term is equivalent to some pre-set number of people, including many not yet born, who have been predestined to be "the elect." There is no compelling reason to import this concept into Peter's reference to believers of his day. Whatever he may say about his believing readers does not necessarily presuppose that they are part of a preordained number who must be saved while those outside that number must never be saved. This is what Calvinists are insisting upon when they make the argument presented above.
While a statement about God's will concerning a group of believers living in the first century might justly be extrapolated to apply to other believing readers living in later ages, this is not the same thing as importing into every reference to believers the Calvinist concept of a pre-elected, hermetically-sealed number of individuals. Those who believe at any given moment are the believers to whom generic statements about "believers" apply.
Please do not respond to this post. I am not finished as it needs to be revised AND more added to it. So please be patient.
Well that's tautology for ya. No one understands outside their understanding. You're not free of this tautology, are you? =chuckle=
Well it's consistent to me.
Peter's writing to those of his day who are believers, as well as secondarily to us. Obviously, Peter can't address future believers at the moment of his writing! They're not believers at the time. But they will be.
This is a letter. Letters can be written to audiences in different contexts. When Peter wrote, I was a "future believer". But I too "have obtained a faith of equal standing". I'm included. And more people in the future will be included by Peter's address. Time passes. People come to faith.
We who come later approach Peter from a different perspective. We must translate his instructions and context into the present day. Peter is not speaking in some superspiritual, "line for all time" wording. He's cutting the Word to application (that is, "rightly-dividing" it). He's expanding the recipient-believers' awareness of other believers -- those who will believe. Peter's making a point: present believers are separated in time from future believers, and that explains why Christ delays. Present believers can look at each other and ask longingly, "Why doesn't Christ return?" But in doing so they neglect that there are future believers.
Hence Peter is still addressing those who have believed -- as well as addressing the question of Christ's delay, future believers. But Peter is making believers aware of future believers. They'll believe after his ink dries and indeed is long turned to powder. And Peter is requiring present believers include future believers with them (as "you"), as a group.
Peter doesn't write to future believers "before the fact of belief". But Peter does write to future believers, when they "have obtained a faith of equal standing". Peter is writing to believers. He's including actual believers in the group, present and future. Peter's already experienced this tens of thousands of times. He was there almost at the start. He saw the church expand dramatically. He's very familiar with what he's talking about. "Include them in your thinking -- even though they're not here yet."
The grammatical construction is much the same as a Dad talking from the driver's seat, "I'm going to be patient with you, we're not driving to the mall until everyone's in the car." And Dad doesn't mean everyone in the world.
In fact this grammatical argument is more consistent than the alternative. It's an interpolation that "all people everywhere" are meant by God's desire. "All" in Greek is an adjective. Adjectives normally have nouns to modify. What noun would point out the people in the scope of God's desire? There's "you", and there's a controversial and I think unsustainable "the ungodly". But there's no noun combining them into one group; and there's no simple noun, "people".
While Mr. Pink is going to exposit on a valid theology, it takes no doctrine of election to carry the argument. I've limited this posting to the argument as it exists without an election doctrine.
So election is not a factor in arguing this point.
But keep in mind -- you "Asked a Calvinist." Of course we're going to point out how consistent it is with election. Of course we're going to point out the clear consistencies it has with election and calling and definite atonement.
Well yes, someone can be a believer when they haven't even become a believer yet. That's what writing is all about: writing to the future, as well as to another. When the group spans time and someone will be a believer, God is unwilling for that believer to perish but to come to repentance. In time that person will "have obtained a faith of equal standing".
This falls largely into the area and ambiguities of a presumed audience. But it's perfectly fine to write to such people, and Peter's reasoning here seems quite good here to me.
There are going to be public responses to public postings. Especially on this forum.
Soaring Eagle: Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?