A major problem for Calvinism

[SoaringEagle]

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.”

 

[GrinningDwarf]

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!!)

 

[SoaringEagle]

Perhaps you could tell me...

 

[frumanchu]

This forum is for asking questions about Calvinism, not debating against Calvinism. Do you have a question for Calvinists?

 

[UMP]

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 ? !!

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Please, please, may I kibbitz ? !!

Ohhh...all right, since our pupil seems to need a little nudge.

 

[oworm]

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.”

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:

or;
3:1

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Um.................No.............. Actually the text quoted affirms Calvanism.

We have a winner!!!

Context and grammar are key!!

The context tells us who is being addressed. Now we apply grammar, a technical term called 'agreement'. If you recall your college 'bonehead' English, there is subject-verb agreement, tense agreement, etc....

2 Peter 3:9. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,

Notice the pronoun 'us'. This tells us the writer is still addressing the group which includes him. Then we get to the controversial area...

not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

To whom is 'any' and 'all' refering?? Contemprary interpretations tell us that 'any' and 'all' refer to every human being who ever lived or ever shall live...but that violates the grammar of the passage. It disturbs the agreement of the pronouns. The subject of 'any' and 'all' are implied in the preceeding pronoun 'us', so a closer interpretation would read

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.”

To arrive at the 'any' and 'all' meaning 'every human being who ever lived or ever shall live', Peter needs to actively make that change himself, but he doesn't. Peter is clearly speaking of the elect here. God is longsuffering toward the elect to give all of the elect time to come into the kingdom. Once the final one of the elect are in the kingdom....

 

[UMP]

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.”

From my buddy, Mr. Pink

"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 3:9 "… not 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
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/0-index.htm

 

[SoaringEagle]

First, I want it to be known that I do acknowledge that where I started this topic is for asking questions, not debating as frumanchu pointed out. I do have a question, and it pertains to the standard Calvinist response or interperetation to 2 Peter 3:9.

You see, as a few of you said, Peter is writing to the elect, and you see again just as you said, the elect here are people that have already obtained precious faith. This would mean that they were believers at that present time. And to this, you all seem to declare that that is absolutely true. But this just creates another problem for your theology, which brings me to my question:

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? I mean, if God takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, makes one a new creature, and regenerates an individual in the manner it is generally assumed, which is irrespective of a postive response to God, then isn't faith and repentance an immediate on the spot fruit of regeneration? So are these people believers or non-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.

Can I get a thumbs up?
SoaringEagle

 

[GrinningDwarf]

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.

 

[SoaringEagle]

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

.

Presuming that this would be your next move so to speak, I wrote the following: (perhaps you missed it or overlooked it)

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.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

.

Presuming that this would be your next move so to speak, I wrote the following: (perhaps you missed it or overlooked it)

Nope...I didn't miss it or overlook it. In fact, I quoted part of it in my reply. 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.

 

[SoaringEagle]

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[heymikey80]

It appears to me that you and those in your camp interperet this Scripture through the lense of their presuppositions.

Well that's tautology for ya. No one understands outside their understanding. You're not free of this tautology, are you? =chuckle=

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

There are going to be public responses to public postings. Especially on this forum.

 

[BBAS 64]

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.

Good day, SE

I would say you are better off you quit, while you are a head. You have been warned about debating in this very thread and it may be percived that you are pushing the line.

You have been given the historical biblical explaination of this verse, you may not agree there is no doubt it has been given.

On this point you are correct:

"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. "

It is more than an assumption.... read my sig.


We do understand that your God tries really hard to bring his will to pass, but comes up short and settles for what he is given.
Peace to u,

Bill

 

[UMP]

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.

MAN!
You guys are really smart !! Yes, I say this with all sincerity. To me, it's fairly plain and simple. However, maybe I'm not thinking enough. If I look at the Bible as a whole, if it tells me anything, it tells me that GOD is GOD. When I get to a verse that I THINK might insinuate to me that man is God, I know I need to re-think, and sure enough, after some study, God ends up being.....GOD !

 

[epistemaniac]

soaring eagle.... here is some info from another friend...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.doc

hope this helps to answer your question(s)... and again.... there is merely an obligation to reply to your concerns, that is, there does not have to be agreement from you concerning these issues to constutite an answer.... whether or not you are persuaded by the answers is another matter entirely...

blessings,
Ken

 

[Ryft]

Peter is writing to those particular believers but the context quite plainly demonstrates that he is not writing about those particular believers only but rather, as [name]heymikeey[/name] so aptly pointed out, those yet to come. The elect who at that time had obtained a faith of equal standing are temporally separated from the elect who had not yet obtained that faith—or even been born. He is writing to these believers but also about those yet to come.

Consistently throughout both epistles (3:1), the "us" being referred to are "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing" with the apostles (1:1), to whom God granted "his precious and very great promises" (1:4 [with whom he is not slack concerning his promises, 3:9; cf. 3:13-14]), the "beloved" (3:1, 8, 14, 17), and the "brethren" (1:10a) who—notice carefully now—have been chosen and called by God (1:10b; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2, 2:9). This is for whom the Lord is longsuffering, not willing that any of these should perish but that all those chosen and called by God, the full number thereof, should come to repentance. As the apostle Paul makes clear (3:15-16 authenticates Paul), there is a remnant of Israel who will see their salvation after the full number of the Gentiles has come in. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as the scoffers would have us believe. The Lord is not late; he has a set time for his return that has always been known to him (Mar. 13:32), which is without any regard to when men think he should return.

As Matthew Henry puts the matter, the Lord "does not delay beyond the appointed time . . . [in as much as] God kept the time that he had appointed for the delivering of Israel out of Egypt, to a day (Exo. 12:41), so he will keep to the time appointed in coming to judge the world." Men have their ideas of when they think the Lord should return; "but they set one time and God sets another, and he will not fail to keep the day which he has appointed."

There is still another consideration which adds further support to this interpretation, that the "all" in this passage refers not to all mankind indiscriminately but to the sheep chosen and called by the Father. For if it refers indiscriminately to all mankind, then we have created a number of contradictions from one end of scripture to the other, because we find in various places throughout scripture that God, although he takes no pleasure in it, is indeed willing that some should perish—and that very justly, for their sins and transgressions.

But we don't even need to examine scripture elsewhere, for in Peter's own epistle here, he too affirms that God is in fact willing that some men should perish. Peter, in his second epistle here (2:9-17), affirms that God does "reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment," ungodly men who are "like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed" and who "will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness," men that he refers to as "accursed children" for whom "is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." And even in this very third chapter we are examining (3:7), Peter proclaims that "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Remember also something Paul said, with regard to God's enduring patience and the objects thereof: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:21-24; cf. 5:9; 1 Thes. 5:9; 1:10).

Since God, in his righteous justice, is indeed willing that some should perish on account of their sins and transgressions (Rom. 12:19 [cf. Deut. 32:35]; Col. 3:6; Joh. 3:36; Rom. 6:16, 23; 1 Cor. 15:56; etc.), obviously the "all" in this passage refers to the "us" stated therein, who are amply identified as God's chosen sheep given to the Son, for whom he laid down his life.

 

[GodsElect]

Well put once again Ryft!

Soaring Eagle: Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet?

As simple as eveyone has put it previously you should have gotten it by now, I pray.

For this question let me add....

God has a plan for everyone. And has elected those who are His from the foundation of the world. It's as simple to understand as the Lord has ordained for us to understand it. The simple answer to your question would be from Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), So no matter what, they WILL believe. By God, it has already been decided for them before they have even been born and they WILL be called. Furthermore, to back this point up I will look to God's word from Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,.... why yes! because the good pleasure of His will! Ahhhhhh Doesn't that make ya feel good that the Lord does ALL things His way.
This is why we give ALL the Glory to Him forever.