The potter has rights too!

[faroukfarouk]

Amen. He was as such before He created all of this and all of us.

"For Thou hast created, hast all things created,
For Thou hast created all things,
And for Thy pleasure they were created,
..."

From: 'Thou art worthy'.

 

[expos4ever]

He designed the evangelical proclamations of men, either by works or speech or by other means, to not only give new eyes to some but to also harden the hearts of others (1 Cor 1:18, Roman 11:7).

I want to address Romans 11:7 in particular. Here it is with some context:

What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
8just as it is written,
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day."
9And David says,
"Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
10"Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever."
11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

For the purposes of this post, I will simply make a claim (and I will defend it later if need be): Paul here is not making an argument about human hardening in general. Given the entire compass of Romans 9 through 11, he is offering an explanation about how the hardening of the nation of Israel in particular has been part of a grand plan of redemption for the entire world. Therefore, it would be an over-reach, I suggest, to see Romans 11:7 as support for the more general concept that God hardens people unto ultimate loss.

But let's suppose that God does indeed generally "harden" people. Even if that's true, this does not, by itself establish that some are fore-ordained to ultimate loss. Why not? Because it is at least plausible that one could freely start down the path of rejecting God and only be hardened after that free choice.

 

[GillDouglas]

But let's suppose that God does indeed generally "harden" people. Even if that's true, this does not, by itself establish that some are fore-ordained to ultimate loss. Why not? Because it is at least plausible that one could freely start down the path of rejecting God and only be hardened after that free choice.

Very good points here. It could be said that He may harden some for ultimate loss, and some temporarily for His purpose. However, we would not agree on who ultimately decides on who is saved and who is passed over. I will not believe that man has any authority or ability to conjure up his own salvation, it's simply above their 'paygrade'.

 

[bling]

So, in essence you're saying that God's Glory is all about us. Really?

Man neither adds to, or detracts from God's Glory. He is Glorious, for no other reason than He is God. He is Glorious. He is Righteous. He is Holy, or more specifically, Thrice Holy (Holy Holy Holy). He is Love. He is Omniscient. He is Omnipresent. He is Omnipotent. He is Alpha and Omega. He is all of those attributes, and more, all in perfect harmony, none taking precedence over any other.

The way I see it:


Man’s “Mission Statement” reads something like this: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

Obtaining that type of “Love” so you can fulfill our mission becomes the first objective of man. This Love is not instinctive to man (that would make it robotic) and it is not forced on man by God (that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun [not Loving]).

This Love is a pure charitable gift offered to all that can accept, but it has to be humbly “accepted” as pure charity or the transaction is not completed (this is like the prodigal son having to go to the father willing to accept charity).

God’s objective in all this is what shows His glory and really makes him Glorious above anyone and everything. God is doing and allowing everything that is happening to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. God is totally unselfish.

God’s unselfishness (Love) makes Him so Glorious and what God does for humans is the greatest unselfishness there could be.

 

[bling]

Amen. He was as such before He created all of this and all of us.

The way I see it:


Man’s “Mission Statement” reads something like this: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.”

Obtaining that type of “Love” so you can fulfill our mission becomes the first objective of man. This Love is not instinctive to man (that would make it robotic) and it is not forced on man by God (that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun [not Loving]).

This Love is a pure charitable gift offered to all that can accept, but it has to be humbly “accepted” as pure charity or the transaction is not completed (this is like the prodigal son having to go to the father willing to accept charity).

God’s objective in all this is what shows His glory and really makes him Glorious above anyone and everything. God is doing and allowing everything that is happening to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. God is totally unselfish.

God’s unselfishness (Love) makes Him so Glorious and what God does for humans is the greatest unselfishness there could be.

 

[Skala]

Are you negating the Scripture to substantiate a point. The Scripture says that God is not willing for any to perish 2 Peter 3:9.

I take issue with your interpretation and understanding of 2 Peter 3:9

the pronouns in 2 peter 3:9 are already established earlier in the chapter. Consider reading verses 1-9:

======
2 Peter 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to YOU, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up YOUR sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that YOU should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through YOUR apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
======

Right away we see that Peter is writing to the "beloved" which is a reference to the church (they are loved by God, hence, beloved). We also see that he has said that this is his second letter to them. This is 2nd Peter. Obviously, his first letter to this same group of people is 1st Peter. If you go to 1st Peter, you will see that Peter says the recipients of his letter is "God's elect" (1 Peter 1:1-2)

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, TO GOD'S ELECT, exiles scattered throughout the provinces..."

Also note that I am capitalizing the pronouns YOU, YOUR, etc so that you can easily follow the chain of pronouns (which, again, is a reference to "the beloved, God's elect, to whom Peter is writing his letter(s)).

===
2 peter 3:4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
=====

Here we see that the scoffers ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" So the "promise" in verse 9 ("the Lord is not slow concerning his promise") is referring to the promise of His coming, not a promise of salvation or a promise of anything else. It's a specific promise.

====
8 But do not overlook this one fact, BELOVED, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
====

Finally we get to verse 9. And you notice the same pronouns. Beloved, and "YOU". The lord is patient towards YOU, not wishing that any perish. Who is the "YOU"? If is already established. It is a pronoun referring to the Beloved, God's elect.

God is not willing that they perish, but that they all reach repentance. This is not a verse that is addressing God's wishes for every single individual, but rather, God's desires for the beloved, His elect.

As you can see from the passage, the topic is Christ's return, and the question about why God is delaying Christ's return. The answer is given in verse 9: God is not willing that any of His people perish. That's why he delays Christ's return. But when the last lost sheep enters the flock, Christ will return. if he comes any sooner than that, some of God's beloved might perish. There are still God's elect out there in future generations, that God intends to save. But as the verse says, he is not willing that they perish, but that they reach repentance.

That is the reason for Christ's delayed return. Because he is not going to lose a single person that He intends to save. Hence Christ's words in John 6 "Of all that the Father has given to me, I will lose none of them, but raise it up again on the last day". The Father and Son are in perfect accord. They are not willing to lose any of those they have set their saving grace on.

tldr; 2nd Peter chapter 3 and verse 9 must be understood in light of the context of what came prior to chapter 3 and verse 9.

 

[expos4ever]

Right away we see that Peter is writing to the "beloved" which is a reference to the church (they are loved by God, hence, beloved)....

This is true, but not all that relevant precisely because the fact that a letter is addressed to a particular set of people does not mean that the letter will not also contain material about another set of people. Now I suspect I anticipate a particular objection in this respect but I will deal with that if and when you raise it. However, I think it is quite clear that the fact that the letter is addressed to the church, in and of itself, is of almost no value in determining who the "all" in 3:9 all. In Romans, for example, Paul talks about the "lost" quite a bit even though the letter is addressed to the church.

2 peter 3:4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Here we see that the scoffers ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" So the "promise" in verse 9 ("the Lord is not slow concerning his promise") is referring to the promise of His coming, not a promise of salvation or a promise of anything else. It's a specific promise.

Agree, but I do not believe this supports your reasoning, below.

8 But do not overlook this one fact, BELOVED, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Finally we get to verse 9. And you notice the same pronouns. Beloved, and "YOU". The lord is patient towards YOU, not wishing that any perish. Who is the "YOU"? If is already established. It is a pronoun referring to the Beloved, God's elect.

Ah, but there is a HUGE translation issue here. The original Greek, as I understand is "us", not you. Granted, it has been translated as "you" but that decision is very much subject to critique. Granted an "us" reading still seems like it supports your take on things but it is also consistent with Paul talking about "us" as in humanity in general. For example: it is perfectly coherent for me to write this in a letter to my friends:

Dear friends, it certainly looks like our picnic will get rained out, but God is kind to us and it may not rain.

The point is that this statement could be read as a referring to a universal us.

Besides, there are, I will not argue very compelling reasons for seeing the "all" who God wants to save as having to include the scoffers. Here is the argument:

1. In verses 3 to 7, Paul introduces and characterizes scoffers who reject God;
2. In the key verse 8, Paul then writes "but God is patient....":
3. Who makes up the "all" in verse 9 is not explicitly stated so we need to determine it by context;
4. The general structure of the argument is this: There are scoffers, but God is patient and wants some group of human beings {whose composition is to be determined by context} to be saved.
5. If this group does not include scoffers, we have Paul saying the following: There are scoffers, but God is patient and wants a group of people that excludes these scoffers to be saved.
6. This does not make sense since the logical structure of the argument demands that God will do something for these scoffers that demonstrates his patience with them.
7. On the other hand, if this group includes these scoffers, we have Paul saying the following: There are scoffers, but God is patient and wants a group of people that includes these scoffers to be saved.
8. This makes perfect sense precisely because to include scoffers in the group of those that God wants to save explains what it means for God to be patient with these scoffers.

 

[expos4ever]

Hello Skala,

After reading your post, I realized there was a part of your argument that I did not address:

As you can see from the passage, the topic is Christ's return, and the question about why God is delaying Christ's return. The answer is given in verse 9: God is not willing that any of His people perish. That's why he delays Christ's return. But when the last lost sheep enters the flock, Christ will return. if he comes any sooner than that, some of God's beloved might perish. There are still God's elect out there in future generations, that God intends to save. But as the verse says, he is not willing that they perish, but that they reach repentance.

I believe I can address this, but not right now.

 

[fhansen]

Time and time again in the epistles of Paul, he tells us that men are dead in trespasses and sin, estranged from God, and completely helpless. All men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, nothing is done with reference to God and His law (Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:10-12). This state is the basis and foundation of the system of redemption found in the Scriptures. Until a man is brought to understand this nature, he will never seek help where alone it is to be found (1 Cor 2:14).

All of mankind lost communion with God, and are under His wrath and curse, but out of His mere good pleasure he has selected some to know freedom of that curse. By His mercy and in infinite wisdom, He designed the evangelical proclamations of men, either by works or speech or by other means, to not only give new eyes to some but to also harden the hearts of others (1 Cor 1:18, Roman 11:7). In that moment of time, set aside by God in eternity, a man realizes his nature, and gladly accepts the means in which he is to be redeemed (2 Thess 2:13, Ezekk 36:26). Through God's instruments He does bring salvation to those whom He chose and there are some who shall remain condemned.

These events are not in the Divine mind as they are in ours by a succession of acts, one after another, but that by one single act God has at once ordained all these things. All of God's decrees are eternal, and therefore came at the moment of creation. And since no one can deny that no person has any claim on God's grace, it's understood that all are unworthy. And if the decree dealt simply with innocent men, it could be understood as being unjust. The already condemned world needs no further condemnation, it needs saving. When all deserve death, it is a marvel of pure grace that any should receive the unmerited gift of everlasting life (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6).

The truth of salvation is a strong topic for debate. There are some who say that God's will can be resisted, and others that claim all will be saved. If all are to be saved, why are there so many who reject Him? If He willed that none should perish, He would surely give to all men those effectual means of salvation without which it cannot be had, but experience and Scriptures prove that He does not (Rom 9:17, Exodus 9:16, Deut 2:30, Joshua 11:20). There are some that say it is because of a man's faith that he is saved. If it were based on faith then God has been careful to choose only those whom He foresees will elect themselves. Some would say that there are none chosen for one purpose over the other, like an earthly father showing favoritism to his children. Yet God gives different things to different people: whether they're born in wealth, have abilities to do certain work, or have a sense of humor; and let us not forget that God loved Jacob, but also hated Esau. Scriptures shows time and time again that God does in fact show favoritism.

Traditionally the church has taught that God desires that all be saved. Man's will is the wildcard in that. God simply knows and opposes the proud, those who adamantly remain opposed to Him in wii. He predestines no one to hell; to cause evil and then condemn someone for it woul be an even greater evil- is opposed to His nature.

 

[Skala]

This is true, but not all that relevant precisely because the fact that a letter is addressed to a particular set of people does not mean that the letter will not also contain material about another set of people. Now I suspect I anticipate a particular objection in this respect but I will deal with that if and when you raise it. However, I think it is quite clear that the fact that the letter is addressed to the church, in and of itself, is of almost no value in determining who the "all" in 3:9 all.

I received this letter from the local prison. It has me uneasy because it clearly says that the warden is going to execute every single person on the face of the planet!!

"To the inmates on death row,

The warden is not slack concerning his duty as some count slackness, but he's righteous toward you, not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed."

What would you do if I came to you with this concern? What would you tell me? Would you agree with me that this letter clearly says that this warden is coming to execute my family, friends, and me?! Or would you look at it and say, "Skala, I believe you're taking things out of context. Clearly the letter is addressed to a certain people. The warden even takes the initiative to say 'you' before he says 'not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed.' You've taken the letter out of context and are using it in a way that is different than what the letter is meant to convey. It's obviously talking about a select group of people, namely the 'inmates on death row' whom the letter is addressed to."

If you would handle this statement by the warden this way, why wouldn't you handle 2 Peter 3:9 in the same way? the only reason I can think of is because a particular presupposition that is being forced upon the text.

In Romans, for example, Paul talks about the "lost" quite a bit even though the letter is addressed to the church.

Ok, but there's still those pesky issues of context, grammar, and pronouns.

Ah, but there is a HUGE translation issue here. The original Greek, as I understand is "us", not you.

Whether it is "you" or "us" makes little difference because Peter is writing to the elect, and he himself is also among the elect. The recipients of his letter (and thus the scope of his statements) is still the same.

More info for your study:

L Boettner Reformed Faith

Arminians insist that in 2 Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at larger, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in the preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgement, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "longsuffering to usward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."


R C Sproul Chosen

Doesn't the bible say that god is not willing that any should perish?

The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing that any should perish.

How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?

In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God's sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.

The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his perceptive will. God's perceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God's will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying his will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.

A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God's disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgement but is "sad" that such righteous judgement must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.

Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in w Peter. If we take the blanket statement, "God is not willing that any should perish," and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be proof not for Arminiainism, but for Universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminiainism.

Suppose we apply the definition of the perceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God's disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: "but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."


What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favour of predestination.

In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminianism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism.


A W Pink Sovereignty of God

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.


John Owen Death of Death

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord....repentance." "The will of God," say some, "for the salvation of all, is here set down both negatively, that he would not have any perish, and positively, that he would have all come to repentance; now, seeing there is no coming to repentance nor escaping destruction, but only by the blood of Christ, it is manifest that that blood was shed for all."

Answer Many words need not be spent in answer to this objection, wrested from the misunderstanding and palpable corrupting of the sense of these words of the apostle. That indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in an answerable proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed, is a rule in the opening of the Scripture. See, then, of whom the apostle is here speaking. "The Lord," says he, "is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish." Will not common sense teach us that us is to be repeated in both the following clauses, to make them up complete and full, - namely, "Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance?" Now, who are these of whom the apostle speaks, to whom he writes? Such as had received "great and precious promises," chap. 1:4, whom he calls "beloved," chap. 3:1; whom he opposes to the "scoffers" of the "last days," verse 3; to whom the Lord hath respect in the disposal of these days; who are said to be "elect," Mat 24:22. Now, truly, to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world (even those to whom he never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly. Neither is it of any weight to the contrary, that they were not all elect to whom Peter wrote: for in the judgment of charity he esteemed them so, desiring them "to give all diligence to make their calling and election sure," chap. 1:10; even as he expressly calls those to whom he wrote his former epistle, "elect," chap. 1:2, and a "chosen generation," as well as a "purchased people," chap. 2:9. I shall not need add any thing concerning the contradictions and inextricable difficulties wherewith the opposite interpretation is accompanied (as, that God should will such to come to repentance as he cuts off in their infancy out of the covenant, such as he hated from eternity, from whom he hides the means of grace, to whom he will not give repentance, and yet knows that it is utterly impossible they should have it without his bestowing). The text is clear, that it is all and only the elect who he would not have perish. A place supposed parallel to this we have in Eze 18:23,32.

Matthew J Slick

Peter wrote this epistle to the Christians. "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2Pe 1:1). Also, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you..." (2Pe 3:1).


In the immediate context, verse 8, says, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

It is very clear that Peter is talking to the believers. It follows, then, that in verse 9 when it says the Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, he again is speaking of the believers. God's patience is here told to be toward the believers, not the unbelievers. God does not want any of them (the believers, the elect) to perish. And they won't, because God's wishes are not thwarted. But again if "any" is every individual then we again have the problem of God's desires being thwarted.

aymon de albatrus

2Pe 3:9: "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."


Peter wrote this epistle to the Christians. "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). Also, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you..." (2 Peter 3:1).

In the immediate context, verse 8, says, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

It is very clear that Peter is talking to the believers. It follows, then, that in verse 9 when it says the Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, he again is speaking of the believers. God's patience is here told to be toward the believers, not the unbelievers. God does not want any of them (the believers, the elect) to perish. And they won't, because God's wishes are not thwarted. But again if "any" is every individual then we again have the problem of God's desires being thwarted.

But men do all they can to cavil the point of the much loved "free will" that can be easily compared to - rebellion. They quibble on the phrase "not willing that any should perish" and say: "there is the irrefutable proof". But, wait a minute, to whom this phrase is referred to? Who is the object intended? Here is: "but is longsuffering to us–ward" It is ‘us’ as identified by Peter himself at the very beginning of the letter: "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" (2Pe 1:1 AV) The subject ‘US’ are the Elect: to them that have obtained like precious faith with us.

It is not referred to ALL men indistinctly, but specifically to those that have been called by the Lord and have received (obtained) from Him a new heart (Eze 36:26,27), that is the ‘new birth’ and of these He wants none lost but that they will come to repentance (only possible with the new heart) and thus to Salvation, and it will be so, assuredly. We see the same principle spelled out in the first letter of Peter: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to [the] elect sojourners of [the] dispersion of Pontus, of Galatia, of Cappadocia, of Asia, and of Bithynia," (1Pe 1:1 LIT) Where Peter addresses the letter to the ELECT and not to the whole world. Therefore, clearly, the ‘US’ are the Elect to eternal life, as evidenced in our base verse: ….. and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Act 13:48)

Arminians insist that in 2 Peter 3:9 the words “any” and “all” refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important, first of all, to see to whom those words were addressed. The epistle is addressed not to mankind at large but to Christians: “...to them that have obtained like precious faith with us” (2Pe 1:1). At the beginning of this very chapter Peter addressed those to whom he was writing as “beloved” (3:1). An examination of the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, reveals that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all but a second-coming verse! It begins by saying, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise [singular].” What promise? “The promise of his coming” (v. 4). The reference is to Christ’s second coming when He will come for judgment, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is “longsuffering to us-ward”; that is, to His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence verse 9 may quite properly be read as follows: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us, the believers, should come to repentance.”

 

[expos4ever]

I received this letter from the local prison. It has me uneasy because it clearly says that the warden is going to execute every single person on the face of the planet!!

"To the inmates on death row,

The warden is not slack concerning his duty as some count slackness, but he's righteous toward you, not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed."

What would you do if I came to you with this concern? What would you tell me? Would you agree with me that this letter clearly says that this warden is coming to execute my family, friends, and me?! Or would you look at it and say, "Skala, I believe you're taking things out of context. Clearly the letter is addressed to a certain people.

Clearly not a valid analogy. From context - from knowing that only prisoners get executed - we know that the "all" here is a limited all: only people in prison are going to be executed.

The situation is much different in the 2 Peter 3 material: there is no particular reason to imagine that Paul might not make reference to an "all" that includes all humanity. We certainly cannot, as many try to argue, that simply because the letter is addressed to a certain audience, it cannot make statements about all humanity.

And, in fact, the context of verse 4-7 very strongly support the notion that the "all" that God is patient with must include the "scoffers". Otherwise, the argument simply does not flow properly (particularly with respect to the use of the "but" at the beginning of verse 8.

The warden even takes the initiative to say 'you' before he says 'not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed.'

But the original Greek is not "you", it is "us". Big difference. Granted, in isolation the "us" would more likely refer to Paul and his fellow believers. But, of course, the "us" is not written in isolation (in the 2 Peter material); it is written in a context where the flow of the argument requires that those who God is patient with must include the scoffers.

You've taken the letter out of context and are using it in a way that is different than what the letter is meant to convey.

Assuming that you are talking about the 2 Peter text and not the letter from the warden, what is your specific argument to this effect? I believe I have addressed each of your objections.

It's obviously talking about a select group of people, namely the 'inmates on death row' whom the letter is addressed to."

True in the context of your particular analogy, but, again you have picked a situation that is not analogous for a very clear reason I have already explained: When a warden makes a statement about people being executed, we already know that he must be talking about prisoners. And this is certainly not because the letter is addressed to the prisoners; it is because it is a fact of the world that wardens do not go around executing people who are not in prison. In the case of 2 Peter, there is no similar a priori basis for rejecting the possibility that the "all" and the "us" are, in fact, a universal "all" and "us". Unless, of course, you bring such a belief to the text. And that, of course, is another debate.

 

[Skala]

Clearly not a valid analogy. From context - from knowing that only prisoners get executed - we know that the "all" here is a limited all: only people in prison are going to be executed.

More specifically, the "all" is limited by the context of the letter. The same is true of 2nd Peter 3:9

The situation is much different in the 2 Peter 3 material: there is no particular reason to imagine that Paul might notmake reference to an "all" that includes all humanity

Actually, the opposite is true. There's no particular reason to imagine that Paul would be talking about all humanity all of a sudden, unless some sort of presupposition was trying to be defended and squashed onto the text.

Are you suggesting that every single pronoun all through the first two letters, all the way up to chapter 3 of the 2nd letter, and verse 9, were about the same group of people, then SUDDENLY, for no reason, in the middle of a sentence, drastically changed to be a pronoun in reference to the entire human race, which was never an antecedent to begin with up until this point?

Really? You actually believe that?

We know that Paul believed in election and that only the elect will be saved, and that God only intends to save the elect. I remind you that THE ELECT ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF PAUL's LETTER(s), per his own admission!

Why would Peter offer encouragement to the recipients of his letter (the elect), who are suffering ridicule by the scoffers, by telling them that God is not slow to fulfill his promise of Christ's second coming because He is trying to save everyone in the human race? There couldn't be a bigger non sequitur. Further, it would be a nonsensical argument to make, because if trying to save every person in the human race was God's reason for delaying Christ's return, then Christ would never return.

I think the problem here is that you are just so used to quoting 2 Peter 3:9 out of context, in a vacuum, that you've always assumed it was a verse about evangelism and a verse about God's intentions to try to save the whole human race, that you've never seen the verse any other way and are having a hard time doing so.

 

[expos4ever]

More specifically, the "all" is limited by the context of the letter. The same is true of 2nd Peter 3:9

You are not addressing my objection. Clearly the "all" is indeed determined by context in both the warden's letter and Paul's letter - no rational person would dispute this. Again, you have chosen an unfair analogy and I would have thought it quite clear what the problem is: when a warden addresses a letter to inmates on death row and then mentions execution, we know that he can only be talking about them - wardens do not go around executing people on the street! Something fundamental about who wardens are allowed to execute plays the definitive role in the determining who the "all" are. By contrast, I see nothing similar in Paul's letter that requires us to understand the "all" as a limited "all". Clearly, it cannot be the mere fact that the letter is addressed to the church, or even to a group of people characterized as elect. Surely I do not need to explain this: consider the letter to the church at Rome - it is addressed to believers but also has this in it:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Who is this you? Certainly it is not the believers in Rome even though the letter is addressed to them.

I have already provided a detailed argument as to why the "all" must include the scoffers. It is in post 27.

 

[expos4ever]

Actually, the opposite is true. There's no particular reason to imagine that Paul would be talking about all humanity all of a sudden, unless some sort of presupposition was trying to be defended and squashed onto the text.

I have provided the argument in great detail in post 27. Please address that argument. I have made no presupposition - I have allowed the context of the preceding verses to establish that the "all" must include these scoffers; otherwise the logic of the argument in these 9 verses falls apart. If there is something wrong with my analysis you should be able to locate a particular place in post 27 where I have messed up. Please address that post.

Are you suggesting that every single pronoun all through the first two letters, all the way up to chapter 3 of the 2nd letter, and verse 9, were about the same group of people, then SUDDENLY, for no reason, in the middle of a sentence, drastically changed to be a pronoun in reference to the entire human race, which was never an antecedent to begin with up until this point?

All I am saying is that context strongly supports seeing the "all" in verse 9 as including the scoffers and I cannot imagine how you can counter-argue this but we will see if you can find an error in post 27. I have no idea why you think I would claim what I claim for no reason when I have given my reasoning in gruesome detail in post 27.

We know that Paul believed in election and that only the elect will be saved, and that God only intends to save the elect. I remind you that THE ELECT ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF PAUL's LETTER(s), per his own admission!

Obviously, as stated above and as should not even be in doubt - the fact that a letter is addressed to a certain set of people does not in away preclude the possibility that the letter can make statements about humanity in general. Surely you would not dispute this? I do not deny that Paul addresses his letter to a group of people he calls "the elect". I am not an idiot!: If I believed that this "the elect" denoted a set of persons foreordained for salvation, I would agree with you. But, of course, I do not believe this.

I will get to the rest of your post later. I am happy to have this discussion in all the grisly details if need be.

 

[GillDouglas]

You are not addressing my objection. Clearly the "all" is indeed determined by context in both the warden's letter and Paul's letter - no rational person would dispute this. Again, you have chosen an unfair analogy and I would have thought it quite clear what the problem is: when a warden addresses a letter to inmates on death row and then mentions execution, we know that he can only be talking about them - wardens do not go around executing people on the street! Something fundamental about who wardens are allowed to execute plays the definitive role in the determining who the "all" are. By contrast, I see nothing similar in Paul's letter that requires us to understand the "all" as a limited "all". Clearly, it cannot be the mere fact that the letter is addressed to the church, or even to a group of people characterized as elect. Surely I do not need to explain this: consider the letter to the church at Rome - it is addressed to believers but also has this in it:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Who is this you? Certainly it is not the believers in Rome even though the letter is addressed to them.

I have already provided a detailed argument as to why the "all" must include the scoffers. It is in post 27.

Nice try. All refers to the audience of the letters and those who would later rely on the letters for training and growth. Specifically those who could spiritual discern the teachings and no one else.

 

[expos4ever]

As you can see from the passage, the topic is Christ's return, and the question about why God is delaying Christ's return.

Of course.

The answer is given in verse 9: God is not willing that any of His people perish. That's why he delays Christ's return. But when the last lost sheep enters the flock, Christ will return. if he comes any sooner than that, some of God's beloved might perish. There are still God's elect out there in future generations, that God intends to save. But as the verse says, he is not willing that they perish, but that they reach repentance.

You are obviously begging the question - presuming the very thing that you need to make a case for. How, and please be specific, do you know that God is waiting for as many people as possible to come freely to the cross. (without being elected, of course) and be saved?

 

[expos4ever]

Nice try. All refers to the audience of the letters and those who would later rely on the letters for training and growth. Specifically those who could spiritual discern the teachings and no one else.

This is obviously not correct in the sense that it is clear from common sense, if not from other letters like Romans, that the author of a letter is free to make statements about humanity in general in a letter addressed to believers. Why Paul does this very things in Romans, as I have just shown.

 

[expos4ever]

My goodness, there are some debates that are worth having and others that are, frankly, debates that are non-starters. One that is clearly a non-starter is this idea that since the letter is addressed to believers, all prepositions (is "all" a preposition"?) have to refer to the recipients of the letter. This is obviously not true in general. Here let me disprove it right now:

Dear Fellow Believers:

Consider the non-believer. He is in a bad state.

Is the "he" a believer? Of course not. How do we know? Context: the preceding sentence tells us who the "he" is.

My argument is precisely the same relative to the "all" in 2 Peter 3:9. Granted, the argument is not as obvious as here. And I also grant that the "you" in verse 9 appears to create problems for my argument. But, and this is a crucial "but", the original Greek is "us", not "you". Big difference. Yes, in isolation, the use of the "us" would appear to designate believers only. But, per the argument in post 27, the logic of the letter rules this out and - key point here - unlike "you", the term "us" could, repeat could, designate all of humanity.

 

[expos4ever]

More info for your study:

L Boettner Reformed Faith

Arminians insist that in 2 Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at larger, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in the preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgement, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "longsuffering to usward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."

My word, a first year undergraduate can find the problems here.

1. Sometimes people say things that are so obviously incorrect, it is difficult to respond without questioning either the intelligence or the honesty of the people making the statement. Such is the case relative to anyone who would make the patently absurd argument that just because a letter is addressed to a particular set of persons (in this case believers), that letter cannot establish a context where the entire world is being addressed and then use words like “all” to actually refer to all humanity. We should not even being arguing about this, it is so obvious. Note that I am NOT suggesting that all of you here are making this argument, but this guy seems to be, at least to some degree.

2. Of course this is a second coming verse! But this author shamelessly leverages the error of item (1), above, when he simply assumes that the “us” as in “usward” refers to believers only. Yes, the use of the word “us” can, of course, in the context of such a letter by a believer to believers denote believers only. In fact, you would expect it to in most cases. But, the word “us” can, in some contexts at least, most certainly refer to all humanity even if the letter is addressed by a believer to believers. Don’t believe me? Here’s proof:
Dear Believers,
The world is a jumble of those who obey God and do good and others who reject God and do evil and God has every right to bring immediate judgment on those who do evil. But God is patient with us and wants all to be saved.
To explain why the “us” and the “all” here must certainly include the “evil people” would be to give a lesson in the basic logic of arguments expressed in the English language. So there is no doubt – given that “usward” can, repeat can, in some context denotes a universal “us”, this author again begs the question – assumes what he needs to make a case for.

 

[expos4ever]

Why would Peter offer encouragement to the recipients of his letter (the elect), who are suffering ridicule by the scoffers, by telling them that God is not slow to fulfill his promise of Christ's second coming because He is trying to save everyone in the human race? There couldn't be a bigger non sequitur.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. Can you please reword?

Further, it would be a nonsensical argument to make, because if trying to save every person in the human race was God's reason for delaying Christ's return, then Christ would never return.

People keep using this argument but it clearly has problems and I am surprised it has such traction. You seem to presume that if I accept the proposition that God wants all people to be saved, combined with the fact that we know that, at any given moment, there will be lots of non-believers in the world, that this mean God is stuck in "wait" mode. The problem is that you assume that God will arrange things to ensure that He gets what He wants. And while I am sure you will be able to come up with verses that say that "whatever Gods want to come to pass will indeed come to pass", I will reply with (1) all sorts of counterexamples where God is upset with what happens in the world and does not magically intervene to get what He wants; and (2) the argument that you are engaging in "over-reach" by taking a single text that declares that "God gets what He wants" and then "absolutizing" that into an exceptionless rigid rule. Well, we can have those discussions if need be.

I take it as rather self-evident that the bald claim "God wants X" is not license to then assume "X will come to pass". However, that appears to be your argument here - Jesus will never return if expos4ever's view is right since there will always be some straggling non-believers who God wants to save and yet who will indeed be lost if Jesus returns.

Well, I agree: some will indeed be lost - that should not be a surprise to anyone. God most assuredly does not want anyone to go home today and kick a puppy. And yet, sadly, this particular wish of God will not be fulfilled as there will certainly be puppy-kicking happening somewhere on this planet today.