Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Understanding 2 Peter 3:9

Recommended Posts

Staff

Without doubt, this is the single most popular verse used to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none. The meaning of the verse is simply assumed, and because of this, no time is taken to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. I have to admit that I did this for many years. Those most enslaved to tradition are those who think they do not have any.

 

First of all then, let us read the verse in its context:

 

2 Peter 3:1-9––“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, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 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.’ 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, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 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.

 

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. 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.”

 

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s second coming. He is still coming and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night (v. 10).

 

The second thing to notice is that the verse in question (v. 9) speaks of the will of God. “God is not willing” for something to happen.

 

Theologians have long recognized that there are three ways in which the will of God is spoken of in Scripture.

 

There is what is called the Sovereign Decretive Will. This refers to the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is something that ALWAYS happens. Nothing can thwart this will. (Isa. 46:10, 11).This will is also known as the secret will of God because it is hidden to us until it comes to pass in the course of time.

 

Secondly, there is the Preceptive Will of God. This is God’s will revealed in His law, commandments or precepts. As the course of human history reveals, people have the power to break these commandments and do so every day. It is important to state though that, although men have the power to break these precepts, they do not have the right to do so. His creatures are under obligation to obey all His commandments and will face His judgment for not doing so.

 

Thirdly, we have God’s Will of Disposition. Dr. R. C. Sproul states, This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient. (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith)

 

There are many in the Reformed community who look at 2 Peter 3:9 and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. He would rather it never happened. But to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell.

 

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I take a different view because of what I see when I follow the pronouns of the passage.

 

WHO ARE THE “ALL”?

 

The people Peter is addressing are clearly identified. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” I believe this is very important.

 

But surely “all” means “all,” right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. When a school teacher is in a classroom and is about to start the class and asks the students, “Are we all here?” or “Is everyone here?” he is not asking if everyone on planet Earth is in the classroom. Because of the context in which the question is framed, we understand that he is referring to all within a certain class or type––in this case, all the students in the class. To say that he is referring to all people on planet earth would be to grossly misinterpret the intended meaning of his question.

 

So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without exception, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group.

 

The context of 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group and not to all of mankind. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…” (2 Peter 3:1).

Can we be even more specific? Yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1––“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…”

 

So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “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. 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 would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen.

 

Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the “any” that God wills not to perish is limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect; and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group.

 

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. The elect are not justified by election, but by putting their faith in Christ. If a person is to be saved they must come to Christ in repentance and faith. The doctrine of Sovereign Election simply explains who will do so. The elect will.

 

Jesus assured us of this when He said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37) and is confirmed by the testimony of Luke in Acts 13:48 when he observed that “… all who were appointed to eternal life believed.”

 

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith. Therefore Christ has not yet returned to the Earth in power and glory. Christ’s second coming may seem delayed (to some) but God is being very longsuffering toward us (you, beloved) not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. Speaking personally, I am so glad that the Lord Jesus did not return the day before I was converted. I would have been lost in sin forever.

 

Rather than denying election, the verse, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it. The context of 2 Peter 3 shouts and screams that Peter, when writing of “all,” is actually referring to all of the elect.

 

Source: https://www.monergism.com/blog/understanding-2-peter-39-john-samson-guest-post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks William for posting this article, it has been a great help to me for understanding your beliefs

My first problem with this article on the explanation of 2 peter 3:9. Is that it has to be taught to you, that you do not see this reading the scriptures unless it is explained to you by others. That's a red flag for me. I have read the passage over and over again since you posted this, and I am confident that unless someone is taught this, it will be missed by the reader

 

The difference between a teacher saying are we all here and God saying it is not my will that any should perish but all come to repentance

Is the teacher is dealing with a classroom of people and God is dealing with humanity. No child ever thought his teacher meant anything more then that class. Every person I know that has read that verse believes God talking to humanity. Granted people may change their views, but that is because of their theology, not what the scripture originally spoke to them

 

There are many in the Reformed community who look at and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. He would rather it never happened. But to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell.

 

This is what I believe

 

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen.

 

Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the “any” that God wills not to perish is limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect; and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group.

 

But this is based on his premise that that this is a sovereign decree

If it was a sovereign decree would Peter finish his letter with

 

 

2Pe 3:17 - You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

 

G

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen.

 

It doesn't look like Dr. Sproul and the writer of this article agree with Peter

 

Why would peter write this warning if it was Gods sovereign degree? it doesn't fit. it seems to me to be Gods will of disposition

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Thanks William for posting this article, it has been a great help to me for understanding your beliefs

 

May I recommend a documentary series? https://www.christforums.org/forum/e...y-of-calvinism

 

I guarantee you'll be more educated on "my" 2000 year old theology.

 

As far as your post is concerned, please read Post # 5: https://www.christforums.org/forum/s...3430#post43430

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William with respect

 

Why am I going to a thread that is called unconditional election, if my questions are about Peter 3:9. I went there read the text, but what then, copy and past from this thread to that one.

Once there, there are other links recommended, so I am not sure where to post.

The thread here is understanding 2 Peter 3:9

 

the other thread didn't really answer my question.

 

There are many in the Reformed community who look at and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. He would rather it never happened. But to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell

 

 

How is this not possible based on 2 Peter 3:9. I am not saying it is the only possibility. I am asking why is it not possible

 

So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “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. 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 understand why God waits. I don't understand how the elect would perish, The fact that he is writing to the Elect does not prove that the any here, are the same group exclusively

 

The elect can not perish, especially since this article said

 

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen

 

So how can the any be the elect if they could perish

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

 

William with respect

 

Why am I going to a thread that is called unconditional election, if my questions are about Peter 3:9.

 

First sentence in the above article, Guppy:

 

Without doubt, this is the single most popular verse used to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none.

 

The above article ends with:

 

Rather than denying election, the verse, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it.

 

The other thread was addressing common objections to Unconditional Election. 2 Peter 3:9 was covered, and the intended audience of the letter was addressed. I hope that answers why, Guppy.

 

Regarding God's will of disposition, the author states:

 

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I take a different view because of what I see when I follow the pronouns of the passage.

 

Clearly he states the basis for rejecting the view which involves grammatical reasons.

 

I understand why God waits. I don't understand how the elect would perish, The fact that he is writing to the Elect does not prove that the any here, are the same group exclusively

 

The elect can not perish, especially since this article said

 

So how can the any be the elect if they could perish

 

The verse says, "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.

 

What is the purpose of God's patience towards the Elect?

 

1) Repentance is necessary. Except we repent, we shall perish, Luke 13:3, Luke 13:5.

2) God does not hasten because He has not accomplished the number of His elect. The "any" refers to the Elect, God is not willing that any should perish.

 

The author states:

 

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith.

 

The author gives reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.

 

My first problem with this article on the explanation of 2 peter 3:9. Is that it has to be taught to you, that you do not see this reading the scriptures unless it is explained to you by others. That's a red flag for me. I have read the passage over and over again since you posted this, and I am confident that unless someone is taught this, it will be missed by the reader

 

Now Guppy, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Are you reading 2 Peter 3:9 with grammatical and contextual principles in mind? I can read 2 Peter 3:9 isolated and draw to the same conclusion as anyone else. It seems that you rejected the author's interpretation based on the fact that you did not see it first?

 

As I posted in the other thread, trying to utilize pronouns that the above author suggested, I was led to ask the question, who are "you" and who are "they"?

  • 3 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

The immediate context addresses the letter to "you" which are: beloved, sincere in mind, with the Lord, and recipients of the promise. The other group are they, which are: scoffers, those following their own sinful desires, that deliberately overlook, receiving judgment and destruction, they are the ungodly.

 

The broader context clearly in 1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, and this chapter 3:1 address the letter to: To God’s elect, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours, and the Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you.

 

There should be no question as to which group of people the letters are addressed to, and in the context of the audience which are the "all" and "any".

 

And two points that I hope are helpful:

 

1) I want to emphasize that when I read Scripture I try to slow down and read the verses in surrounding context. Reading a verse isolated over and over again does nothing. A verse must respect grammar and context. Otherwise a questionable interpretation may stand when it should fail based on what the author had in mind.

 

2) And to note, I like to address the Scriptural verses in question at first by myself. Then I turn to some long lasting dead theologians which have stood against the criticisms and scrutiny of time. Bearing in mind, that if I come up with a new novel interpretation that no one else in 2000 years of Church history has already addressed, I follow the principle - "best to abandon it".

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I take a different view because of what I see when I follow the pronouns of the passage.

The writer does not say, the other view is grammatically incorrect. He said he takes a different view. I would like to ask you, is it grammatically in correct to take the other view? I am not saying one side is right other is wrong. I am asking grammatically are both options possible

God does not hasten because He has not accomplished the number of His elect. The "any" refers to the Elect, God is not willing that any should perish.

I don't understand that statement

 

Romans 11

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26and in this wayeall Israel will be saved. As it is written:

 

Is not that statement talking about the Elect? God is waiting for a certain amount of people, the full amount of people

 

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith.

 

 

.

The author gives reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.

 

 

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in

 

God is waiting for the full number to come in. He is waiting for a specific number the full number of gentiles. He can not come until that happens, because he has said it. That makes it impossible for the elect to perish. Because we are predestined it makes it impossible for the elect to perish. It is my belief that God is waiting patiently for all man kind to come to repentance

 

if we are to believe That the elect could perish, why was the pronoun changed?

 

 

but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance

 

why not stick with you. It was you and they, you and they

Not whishing that you should perish, why not write that, if we are talking about the same group?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
God is waiting for the full number to come in. He is waiting for a specific number the full number of gentiles. He can not come until that happens, because he has said it. That makes it impossible for the elect to perish. Because we are predestined it makes it impossible for the elect to perish. It is my belief that God is waiting patiently for all man kind to come to repentance

 

if we are to believe That the elect could perish, why was the pronoun changed?

 

 

I'd like to stick to 2 Peter 3:9 and not redirect to Romans 11:25-26.

 

It is my belief that God is waiting patiently for all man kind to come to repentance

 

"All man kind", do you mean every person in the world without exception, Guppy? Should I rip your statement from context and use this to suggest that you are advocating Universalism? Are you a Universalist Guppy?

 

Who are "all man kind" Guppy? And if "all man kind" does not include every single person in the world then who are they that are the exceptions?

 

but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance

 

why not stick with you. It was you and they, you and they

Not whishing that you should perish, why not write that, if we are talking about the same group?

 

Are you suggesting "any of you" could be clearer?

 

I'd like to hear your answer to my questions in this post.

 

God is waiting for the full number to come in. He is waiting for a specific number the full number of gentiles. He can not come until that happens, because he has said it. That makes it impossible for the elect to perish. Because we are predestined it makes it impossible for the elect to perish. It is my belief that God is waiting patiently for all man kind to come to repentance

 

I think you have reduced God down to a "wishful thinker with fingers crossed" waiting for all mankind to believe and repent. I think you're painting God with an impotent brush. God according to your theology is subject to the will of man. Correct me if not.

 

You suggest that the Elect cannot perish because they are predestined. That is correct, but not completely accurate. Some think the Elect can merely assent to the Gospel, live a life of sin, and still be justified.

  • Romans 8:30 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The Elect are predestined, they are called, they are justified, and glorified. How is one justified? The answer is through faith and repentance.

  • Luke 18:14 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
  • Acts 2:38 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
  • Matthew 6:12 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Can someone Elect never come to Christ through faith and repentance, Guppy? Romans 8:30 is clear and gives a partial order of salvation: predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

 

But I agree with you on the account that the Elect cannot perish, because I believe 2 Peter 3:9 is speaking of God's sovereign will towards the Elect. Therefore, 2 Peter 3:9 cannot include the reprobate, especially if we entertain the implications that God does lose some or that nobody goes to hell (Universalism) which would contradict verse 2 Peter 3:7 where "ungodly" are awaiting "judgment and destruction".

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to stick to 2 Peter 3:9 and not redirect to Romans 11:25-26.

I wasn't trying to redirect. I was just trying to answer a statement that you made

 

2) God does not hasten because He has not accomplished the number of His elect. The "any" refers to the Elect, God is not willing that any should perish.

 

"All man kind", do you mean every person in the world without exception, Guppy? Should I rip your statement from context and use this to suggest that you are advocating Universalism? Are you a Universalism Guppy?

 

Who are "all man kind" Guppy? And if "all man kind" does not include every single person in the world then who are they that are the exceptions?

 

 

I said this is what I believe

There are many in the Reformed community who look at and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. He would rather it never happened. But to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell

 

 

 

I don't believe in universalisms

 

 

It is my belief, that before God created us , he knew who would choose to be faithful and who would not. He created us anyway knowing all would not be saved. It does not please God, he does not want any to perish, but all to be saved, but he created us anyway giving us the ability to choose

 

.

I think you have reduced God down to a "wishful thinker with fingers crossed" waiting for all mankind to believe and repent. I think you're painting God with an impotent brush. God according to your theology is subject to the will of man. Correct me if not.

No that is not what I think at all and I hope I made it a little more clear this time, but I believe God gave man the ability to choose, without it effecting his sovereignty

 

 

 

But I agree with you on the account that the Elect cannot perish, because I believe 2 Peter 3:9 is speaking of God's sovereign will towards the Elect. Therefore, 2 Peter 3:9 cannot include the reprobate, especially if we entertain the implications that God does lose some or that nobody goes to hell (Universalism) which would contradict verse 2 Peter 3:7 where "ungodly" are awaiting "judgment and destruction".

 

It only contradicts when it is seen as Gods sovereign will, which I do not[

There are many in the Reformed community who look at and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. He would rather it never happened. But to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell.

 

 

 

 

It is only the KJV that use the word will all other translations use wanting

 

Are you suggesting "any of you" could be clearer?

 

 

not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

I was asking why not stick with the pronoun you. Not wishing any of you should perish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope y'all wont mind my jumping in real quick. :) Just wanted to reiterate the thrust of what William has said and focus on the question about Universalism. There's actually a proof there, in that denying the context-based understanding William has outlined entails Universalism, which itself is disproved on the basis of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

The proper understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 will be consistent with other Scriptures such as 1 John 5:14-15, where we're told 1) what to pray (anything according to God's will) and 2) that we will receive what was requested. Since we understand 2 Peter 3:9 to be in accord with God's will, we should pray in accordance with it. And if we then pray that no one universally perishes, God must grant it.

 

For reference, those two passages:

2 Peter 3:9 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.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.

 

And the argument:

 

P1: If “all” in 2 Peter 3:9 refers to “all people universally”, then Universalism is true.

P2: Universalism is not true.

C: Therefore, “all” in 2 Peter 3:9 does not refer to “all people universally”.

 

I hope that's clear and helps clarify the point. It's basically just a summary of what William is saying, with which I fully agree. I've actually posted a variant of the proof with regard to 1 Timothy 2:1 here:

https://noneseek.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/prayer-for-the-salvation-of-all-men/

 

It's the same proof, basically just highlighting the need for consistency. Consistency meaning we don't contradict ourselves, as truth doesn't contradict, and Jesus is truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already answered this, and I was the one that suggested "any of you" refers to the Elect keeping with the pronoun and which group Peter is writing. The problem I have with this being God's will of disposition is that it appears to harmonize when there is no need of it because of the context. If God desires, wills, or even wants all men without exception is He impotent or incapable of accomplishing what He desires, wills or wants? God's sovereign will does not have this issue, God does not say the reprobate will not find judgment and destruction, contrarily the context actually does say that is exactly what's waiting the ungodly.

 

No, sorry William I don't agree. God is not incapable of accomplishing his desires. The not wanting any should perish is God grieving over the sinner. He doesn't want any to parish. It's like with the flood

 

Genesis 6

 

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

 

Does this mean God made a mistake or that he did not know this would happen,

This is what 2 peter 3:9 is to me

 

If you do not agree, I can't make my position clearer. Moving on.

 

I appreciate that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...