The potter has rights too!

[Skala]

Dear expos4ever, thanks for the posts, but I vehemently disagree. I see no contextual or grammatical reason (or even a sociological reason!) that "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 extends beyond the group in question.

The irony here is that my understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 actually fits quite nicely into your view, but you won't let it.

By "your view" I am referring to Conditional Election (the non-calvinistic, Arminian variety of the doctrine of election)

Conditional Election states that God knew beforehand who would willingly believe, and thus, He elected them in eternity past, before creation. This is in keeping with "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4-11)

As you can see, the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is not WHO is elect, or even WHEN they were elected, but WHY they are elect.

Calvinists believe in Unconditional Election, which teaches that God elected people, not based on foreseen faith (for in Calvinism, there is no such thing), but rather they were elected by grace. (hence, unconditional - the sinners met no conditions by which to be elected. It was 100% freely and mercifully done)

Arminians believe in Conditional Election, which teaches God foresaw who would, during human history, freely believe, thus, in eternity past, he elected those sinners for salvation.

In both of these views, the "who" and the "when" is the same. All that differs is the "why" they are elected.

I say all of that to say this: My understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 fits very nicely under the framework of Arminian Conditional Election (your view, assuming you are a synergist/non-Calvinist).

You believe in election. (you have to, because the Bible teaches it)
You believe the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.(you have to, because the Bible teaches it)
The only place we differ is WHY they are elect, not whether there is an elect group, or when God elected them.

If 2 Peter 3:9 is saying that God is delaying Christ's return because he is patiently waiting for all of the elect to reach repentance, this understanding fits VERY nicely under both Calvinist and Arminian frameworks. It fits nicely under both Conditional and Unconditional Election.

There is no reason to insist that 2 Peter 3:9, or any other verse for that matter, is teaching that God is "trying" to save the entire human race. Even in the staunchest, strictest Arminianism, saying such a thing is absurd. God already knows who the elect are - He already elected them, before He created the earth! It is ridiculous to say that God is "trying" to save all the non-elect!

There is no reason to say that 2 Peter 3:9 is teaching that God delays Christ's return because he is patiently waiting for the non-elect to repent. Do you realize how absurd that is? He knows they won't repent. He knew who the elect were, from before the foundation of the world. He is, after all, the one who ELECTED them in the first place.

How on earth can you convince me that God is delaying Christ's return because he's waiting for the non-elect to repent? Is God unsure of who the elect are? Does God have foreknowledge of the elect?

As I said, the Calvinist interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 fits quite nicely into Arminianism. But Arminians don't realize it.

it seems like everytime a debate heats up, Arminians instantly forget about the doctrine of election. They instantly forget that they, too, believe in election, and that election happened before the foundation of the world. They (Arminians) in arguing that this-or-that verse is teaching that God is trying to save the non-elect, actually undermine and argue against their own position!

 

[Skala]

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.

Then, I'm afraid, you don't even believe the Bible. For even the strictest synergists and Arminians believe such a thing. Election is not a doctrine unique to Calvinism.

As I argued in my above post, the difference between synergists/monergists or Arminianis/Calvininists is not whether or not there is an elect group, and it is not when the elect were elected; the only difference is why they were elected.

If you deny:
A) there is an elect group
B) this group was elected before the foundation of the world

Then you are denying the Bible itself.

For it says : "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"
And of the elect, it says:

Mat_24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of THE ELECT those days will be cut short.
Mat_24:24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even THE ELECT.
Mat_24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather HIS ELECT from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mar_13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of THE ELECT whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar_13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, THE ELECT.
Mar_13:27 And then he will send out the angels and gather HIS ELECT from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Luk_18:7 And will not God give justice to HIS ELECT, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?
Rom_8:33 Who shall bring any charge against GOD's ELECT? It is God who justifies.
Rom_11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. THE ELECT obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
1Ti_5:21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of THE ELECT angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
2Ti_2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of THE ELECT, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Tit_1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of GOD's ELECT and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
1Pe_1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are ELECT exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

How can you deny that there is a group known as "the elect"? And how can you deny that they were chosen before the foundation of the world?

 

[expos4ever]

Then, I'm afraid, you don't even believe the Bible.

Please do not engage in patronizing false witness - I take the Bible very seriously as you will discover if we continue to discuss and /or other matters. I believe in election, but election does not necessarily means election unto salvation. We can discuss that further as the need requires.

How can you deny that there is a group known as "the elect"?

I hope this misrepresentation is a misreading on your part and not an intentional attribution. I never denied the concept of election and I never denied that there is a concept of a group called "the elect".

 

[Skala]

s. I believe in election, but election does not necessarily means election unto salvation.

Does it ever mean that? If so, where?

I hope this misrepresentation is a misreading on your part and not an intentional attribution. I never denied the concept of election and I never denied that there is a concept of a group called "the elect".

In what sense, then, are the recipients of Peter's letters elect?

Perhaps we should start there first.
My position is that they are elect in the soteriological sense (ie, God chose them (elected them) for salvation), because thats what it says in 1 Peter 1:1-2, that this group of people has been chosen for obedience to Christ.

That is my position. What is yours?

 

[expos4ever]

I cannot spend more time here today but I want to raise one very simple point that I trust we will agree on. The word "elect" and its cognates are about "choice", "selection", etc. The word "elect" in and of itself does not denote chosen unto an eternal destiny. In this regard, there is this tendency in Christian circles to think that the Bible is fundamentally about "what happens after you die". I suggest that while this is, of course, very important, it was not at all a central concern of the writers of Scripture, especially the Old Testament stuff. So we cannot simply assume that "election" means "election in relation to an eternal destiny.

 

[EmSw]

Does it ever mean that? If so, where?



In what sense, then, are the recipients of Peter's letters elect?

Perhaps we should start there first.
My position is that they are elect in the soteriological sense (ie, God chose them (elected them) for salvation)

What is your position regarding the elect to whom Peter is addressing his letter(s)?

They are elect through sanctification.

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[Skala]

They are elect through sanctification.

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

So your position is that the elect become elect in temporal time, only because they prove themselves by their self-wrought obedience and resulting sanctification?

You are denying that they were already elect from before the foundation of the world?

 

[EmSw]

So your position is that the elect become elect in temporal time, only because they prove themselves by their self-wrought obedience and resulting sanctification?

You are denying that they were already elect from before the foundation of the world?

I'll stick with what Peter said. They are elect THROUGH sanctification.

 

[Skala]

I'll stick with what Peter said. They are elect THROUGH sanctification.

And what are the implications of (what you think) Peter means?

Please answer my question: Are you denying election from before the foundation of the world?

 

[Job8]

I cannot spend more time here today but I want to raise one very simple point that I trust we will agree on. The word "elect" and its cognates are about "choice", "selection", etc. The word "elect" in and of itself does not denote chosen unto an eternal destiny. In this regard, there is this tendency in Christian circles to think that the Bible is fundamentally about "what happens after you die". I suggest that while this is, of course, very important, it was not at all a central concern of the writers of Scripture, especially the Old Testament stuff. So we cannot simply assume that "election" means "election in relation to an eternal destiny.

Right. As one goes through the use of the word "elect" ans "election" on finds that it has many other applications than that of eternal destiny. But as regards the perfection of the saints, they are elect according to the foreknowledge of God, and the ultimate objective of election and predestination is to be conformed to the image of God's Son (Rom 8:29,30).

 

[EmSw]

And what are the implications of (what you think) Peter means?

Please answer my question: Are you denying election from before the foundation of the world?

We are chosen to be holy (sanctified) and without blame before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 14
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Once a man sanctifies himself through the Spirit, which comes after his calling, then he becomes the elect through sanctification, as Peter said.

 

[Skala]

We are chosen to be holy (sanctified) and without blame before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 14
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Once a man sanctifies himself through the Spirit, which comes after his calling, then he becomes the elect through sanctification, as Peter said.

Thankfully, God guarantees that every single elected, called person will be sanctified. Per Romans 8:30 and Phil 1:6.

Can I get an amen from you EmSw that God doesn't lose a single person He elected from before the foundation of the world? He chooses to save them and then guarantees their salvation, am I right?

Amen!

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Once a man sanctifies himself through the Spirit, which comes after his calling, then he becomes the elect through sanctification, as Peter said.

A man is sanctified at the moment of regeneration.

1 Cor 6:11 - And such were some of you (καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε). But you were washed (ἀπελούσασθε, c.f. Acts 22:16: rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name), you were sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε), you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Did the washing take place at a different time than their sanctification? I think you would have to go through some major exegetical hoops to prove that the washing, sanctifying and justifying of 1 Cor 6:11 all take place at different times.

 

[expos4ever]

A man is sanctified at the moment of regeneration.

1 Cor 6:11 - And such were some of you (καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε). But you were washed (ἀπελούσασθε, c.f. Acts 22:16: rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name), you were sanctified (ἡγιάσθητε), you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I think we all need to be fair to ourselves - Paul has a very complicated model of what exactly is going on in terms of justification, salvation, and perhaps even sanctification (I am much more familiar with justification and salvation than sanctification).

But to illustrate how difficult this is: In the text you quote "justification" is a past event. But in this text, it is a future event:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

I suggest we are suffering from the problem of the "blind men and the elephant": if one blind man touches the elephant on the leg, he thinks he is touching a tree. If another one touches on the trunk, that man thinks he is touching a snake. In short, we cannot over-reach based on the tense used in one place. I think this happens a lot in these discussions - we conclude "too much" from a particular text because we do not modulate our interpretation based on what other texts says (in fact, texts which, on a surface reading at least, appear to directly contradict the first text).

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I think we all need to be fair to ourselves - Paul has a very complicated model of what exactly is going on in terms of justification, salvation, and perhaps even sanctification (I am much more familiar with justification and salvation than sanctification).

But to illustrate how difficult this is: In the text you quote "justification" is a past event. But in this text, it is a future event:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

I suggest we are suffering from the problem of the "blind men and the elephant": if one blind man touches the elephant on the leg, he thinks he is touching a tree. If another one touches on the trunk, that man thinks he is touching a snake. In short, we cannot over-reach based on the tense used in one place. I think this happens a lot in these discussions - we conclude "too much" from a particular text because we do not modulate our interpretation based on what other texts says (in fact, texts which, on a surface reading at least, appear to directly contradict the first text).

δικαιωθήσονται (will be justified) is just in keeping with the context of κριθήσοντ (will be judged) in v12, which is the future judgment that we will all face. There is no confusion here.

 

[expos4ever]

δικαιωθήσονται (will be justified) is just in keeping with the context of κριθήσοντ (will be judged) in v12, which is the future judgment that we will all face. There is no confusion here.

I don't think my point was clear: I am not saying there is confusion per se; I am saying, by way of example that one cannot, as many do, claim that justification is something that can be associated with a particular point in time. Same with salvation: that term is used in a range of tenses. Yet many, for example, insist that salvation is a discrete "single point in time event" that can be associated with the conversion event.

 

[bleitzel]

Here, Skala: I'll say it. Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong. There is NO un-elect group. Both conditional election and unconditional election are wrong. There's direct election, that is member's of God's family by birth (the Jews) and adoptive election, members of God's family by adoption (everyone else).

Paul is saying as it has now been revealed, that the Jews had it wrong all along. They always believed God had chosen them alone to be his people (some believed it was because they were so awesome and some believed it was just his choice (does that mean that the Jews were the original Calvinists and Arminians???)) and they believed that God had not chosen the Gentiles, they were just out of luck. But Paul was saying that was wrong, we're all chosen. That the Jews were chosen first, but through Christ we're (us Gentiles) are all now also chosen.