Evolution doesn't matter anymore.

[Mark Quayle]

God is not willing to lose even one person to Hell, and yet you think He would delude people into losing their salvation?

Who said he is not willing to lose even one person to Hell? Read it again, in context. To whom is he talking? Concerning whom is he talking? You imply that God's work went wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

God says so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.

To whom is he talking?

To every one of us.

Concerning whom is he talking?

All of us.

You imply that God's work went wrong.

No. I'm pointing out that God is unwilling that any be lost, but He gives us the freedom to reject His salvation if we will.

We aren't robots, and God does not take pleasure in the damnation of anyone. He is unwilling that even one of us be lost.

If the worst person in history repented and returned to God, there would be rejoicing in heaven over that person's salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God says so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.

To every one of us.

All of us.

Your hermeneutics lacks consideration of context. He was talking to the Elect, about the Elect.

Btw, it is not 'penance' as Douay–Rheims and a few others have it, but 'repentance'.

No. I'm pointing out that God is unwilling that any be lost, but He gives us the freedom to reject His salvation if we will.

We aren't robots, and God does not take pleasure in the damnation of anyone. He is unwilling that even one of us be lost.

If the worst person in history repented and returned to God, there would be rejoicing in heaven over that person's salvation.

And apart from God changing our sinful hearts (minds) we will ALL reject his salvation. Romans 8:5-8

You assume the criteria I employ to rate the possibility of repentance is the depth of sin? The only ones who can possibly repent are those who are no longer slaves to sin, regenerated by the grace of God. Regeneration happens by God's choice, not by the choice of fallen and incapacitated man.

 

[The Barbarian]

And apart from God changing our sinful hearts (minds) we will ALL reject his salvation. Romans 8:5-8

Which is why He says that He wants all to come to repentance, not willing that any be lost.

You assume the criteria I employ to rate the possibility of repentance is the depth of sin? The only ones who can possibly repent are those who are no longer slaves to sin, regenerated by the grace of God.

But that is their decision. God withholds grace from no one open to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

You assume the criteria I employ to rate the possibility of repentance is the depth of sin?

No. I'm showing you that God wants no one to be lost, but He gives us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

We aren't robots.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your hermeneutics lacks consideration of context. He was talking to the Elect, about the Elect.

He said "any", not "just the elect." So that's not the case. God is unwilling that any be lost.

No way to dance away from His word. Accept it as it is, without modification.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which is why He says that He wants all to come to repentance, not willing that any be lost.

So you ignore the context of the verse, because you like the sound of it? Or it lines up with your idea of God's love --with your theology?

But that is their decision. God withholds grace from no one open to it.

Whether one is elect or not is God's decision. Nobody is open to God's grace, but those whose hearts have been reborn.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. I'm showing you that God wants no one to be lost, but He gives us the freedom to choose for ourselves.

We aren't robots.

You have not shown me that God means to save everyone. Your use of the verse is in error.

Do robots have will? We do.

Of course we have freedom to choose, and to make real, effectual choices, with real, even eternal, consequences! I'm not saying otherwise. But our choices are caused, within the sequence of cause-and-effect, whether we like it or not. We are not given uncaused choice. And whether you want to say God (First Cause) is at the head of causation, and therefore indirectly causes our choices, or he directly causes them, it makes no difference. We do choose, and God does cause.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have not shown me that God means to save everyone.

He says He is unwilling that any of us might be lost.

Your use of the verse is in error.

You'll have to take that up with Him. I believe Him. You should, too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He says He is unwilling that any of us might be lost.



You'll have to take that up with Him. I believe Him. You should, too.

I believe him too. It seems you believe what you want. Maybe you should read the context. Are you in the habit of reading one verse at a time and understanding it as separate from the rest of Scripture, and according to the plain English of today?

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe him too.

You say you do, but it seems you believe what you want. Maybe you should read the context.

What do you think the context is? I don't see how you can make it any other than it is. Are you in the habit of reading one verse at a time and understanding it as separate from the rest of Scripture, and according to the plain English of today?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You say you do, but it seems you believe what you want. Maybe you should read the context.

What do you think the context is? I don't see how you can make it any other than it is. Are you in the habit of reading one verse at a time and understanding it as separate from the rest of Scripture, and according to the plain English of today?

Already told you. The context is written to the Elect. The context and the verse are about the Elect. Not about all humanity in general.

 

[The Barbarian]

The context is written to the Elect. The context and the verse are about the Elect. Not about all humanity in general.

That is an unsupported addition to God's word.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is an unsupported addition to God's word.

And you know this because.....?

 

[The Barbarian]

And you know this because.....?

It's not in scripture. Peter was speaking to all humans.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

That's not the only place:

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 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.

Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Paul, to the Romans, describes the "elect", referring to Jews only:

Romans 11:7 What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it; and the rest have been blinded.

So are the non-elect doomed? No, they are not, according to God's word:

Romans 11: 11 I say then, have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid. But by their offence, salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. 12 Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more the fulness of them? 13 For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry, 14 If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's not in scripture. Peter was speaking to all humans.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

That's not the only place:

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 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.

Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Paul, to the Romans, describes the "elect", referring to Jews only:

Romans 11:7 What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it; and the rest have been blinded.

So are the non-elect doomed? No, they are not, according to God's word:

Romans 11: 11 I say then, have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid. But by their offence, salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. 12 Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more the fulness of them? 13 For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry, 14 If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them.

You seem to not know about hermeneutics or good sense in reading.

2 Peter 1: "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours" See? He is writing to those who have received faith.
2 Peter 3: "9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Peter is talking to the same people here as at the beginning of the book, and throughout the book. Why would the Lord be patient with those to whom Peter is talking (the Elect, as he says --"making your calling and election sure", concerning wanting all people who ever lived to come to repentance? That doesn't make sense.

John 3:16 "For God loved the world in this way: that those believing in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 "17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him" God's purpose in sending his son was not for condemnations sake --indeed vs 18 says they are condemned already anyhow-- but for the purpose of salvation. There are at least 3 other views of the term, 'world' that need not mean he ever intended or hoped to save absolutely everyone who ever lived.

The rest of your examples fall the same way. They simply don't show what you want them to show. Yet, you, out of pure assertion, ignore the good sense of contextual understanding and proper hermeneutics, exegesis, in interpreting Scripture. Your eisegesis leads you into error.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to not know about hermeneutics or good sense in reading.

You've confused your eisegesis with hermeneutics.

2 Peter 1: "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours" See? He is writing to those who have received faith.

But Peter didn't say "God is unwilling that any of you be lost." He said

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

He didn't limit it to just those already saved. Indeed, He would have no concern for the salvation of those already saved. Let it be His way, not yours.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But Peter didn't say "God is unwilling that any of you be lost." He said

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

"God is unwilling that any of you be lost." IS what he said. "...not wishing that any should perish..."

He didn't limit it to just those already saved. Indeed, He would have no concern for the salvation of those already saved. Let it be His way, not yours.

No, true he didn't limit it to those already saved. He limited it to the ELECT.
Chapter 1: "10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Here Paul is assuming they are saved, yet if they do not (as it says elsewhere) continue in the faith, they are not saved; therefore, they MUST continue. And God is not willing that any of the Elect should perish. See again who he is talking to. He doesn't suddenly change the subject, to say that being patient with the elect has some relation to his desire to save absolutely everyone who ever lived, and then return to the original subject.

If you take a verse out of context because you don't like the alternative, how is that not the eisegesis that you accuse me of?

Let it be his way --not yours.

 

[The Barbarian]

"God is unwilling that any of you be lost." IS what he said.

Nope.

Peter didn't say "God is unwilling that any of you be lost." He said

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

No, true he didn't limit it to those already saved. He limited it to the ELECT.

I see your denial, but the fact remains. He said "any" without qualification.

And God is not willing that any of the Elect should perish.

You're putting words in God's mouth. You added "elect" to make it acceptable to you. Bad idea.

If you add a qualifier to God's word, out of context, because you don't like the alternative, how is that not the eisegesis that you accuse me of?

Why not just accept it as it is without your new qualifier?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope.

Peter didn't say "God is unwilling that any of you be lost." He said

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

I noticed that you necessarily must truncate my response to repeat your claim.

I see your denial, but the fact remains. He said "any" without qualification.

The context qualifies it.

You're putting words in God's mouth. You added "elect" to make it acceptable to you. Bad idea.

If you add a qualifier to God's word, out of context, because you don't like the alternative, how is that not the eisegesis that you accuse me of?

Why not just accept it as it is without your new qualifier?

The context shows 'elect'. How do you consider that "out of context"? Does "out of context" mean "FROM context"? I did not add it, but you, let's just say, 'ignored' it, to avoid referring to the Biblical prohibition concerning your hermeneutic.