2 Peter 3:9 and T.U.L.I.P.

[Littlejoe]

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,* not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. NKJV

This morning, Pastor preached on Evangelism. Being an arminian church, he cited 2 Peter 3:9 as a valid reason for us to be actively involved in spreading the Gospel to all people. Now, I realize there are several reasons we are to preach the Gospel to all, but of course, I began thinking that 2 Peter 3:9 has a dichotomy that in the reformed view, either negates L (limited atonement) or P (perserverance of the saints). I admit I may be setting up a false dichotomy, but after thinking it through, I can't see it. So I have set up this poll to see what folks think about that. Here is my reasoning thus far:

1) If 2 Peter is written about all mankind, and not just about christians, then Limited Atonement is not valid...

2) However, as I have seen argued by some reformed folks, 2 Peter 3:9 is written to christians, (and this seems to be a valid argument based on 1 Peter 1:1,2) and it isn't about all mankind...but then that means that some christians aren't currently saved (?)...as God doesn't want any to perish.

So, is this a valid proof? Why or why not?

If you pick number 4 then please make sure you explain why...

LJ

[Littlejoe]

No takers from the reformed side yet?

[Bavinck]

This morning, Pastor preached on Evangelism. Being an arminian church, he cited 2 Peter 3:9 as a valid reason for us to be actively involved in spreading the Gospel to all people. Now, I realize there are several reasons we are to preach the Gospel to all, but of course, I began thinking that 2 Peter 3:9 has a dichotomy that in the reformed view, either negates L (limited atonement) or P (perserverance of the saints). I admit I may be setting up a false dichotomy, but after thinking it through, I can't see it. So I have set up this poll to see what folks think about that. Here is my reasoning thus far:

1) If 2 Peter is written about all mankind, and not just about christians, then Limited Atonement is not valid...

2) However, as I have seen argued by some reformed folks, 2 Peter 3:9 is written to christians, (and this seems to be a valid argument based on 1 Peter 1:1,2) and it isn't about all mankind...but then that means that some christians aren't currently saved (?)...as God doesn't want any to perish.

So, is this a valid proof? Why or why not?

If you pick number 4 then please make sure you explain why...
LJ

Littlejoe, you say, "if you pick number 4", but I think you mean number 2. At any rate, this is a good observation on your part; but before I pick number 2, I think there is something your perhaps missing. Calvinism typically doesn't see II Pe. 3:9 as pertaining to believers but to the elect in general. The elect in general are both those that have come to faith and those who haven't yet. Notice below that Peter says that God is “patient toward you” both in that “you” not perish but that in that you, “reach repentance”, apparently speaknig of initial conversion. Thus, while Peter’s “toward you” pertains to those to whom he writes, it doesn't pertian to them as believers but as the elect in general, some of whom haven’t yet come to faith. What Peter says is the following:

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

The point here is that Peter’s above talk of perishing doesn’t seem to apply strictly to believers but to the elect that haven’t yet believed. Still, I like the point you are making, in that other passages seem to speak of the threat of believes falling from faith and perishing. I even believe that Calvinist’s need to explain what these warnings mean.

As a Calvinist, I believe we should pray that believers continue in faith and hence not loose their salvation. For example, Paul prays that Christ may dwell in the Colossians hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17), which seem to be a prayer that they continue in faith and salvation. I even see Scripture as warning believes to in fact persevere in faith so that they will be saved in the end. This seems to be what Paul does when he speaks of God presenting the Colossian believers before God in the end, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard” (Co. 1:22-23). Yes, one might argue that if God assures that no matter what all who come to faith will receive final salvation , then prayers like Col. 1:17 and warnings like Co. 1:22-23 would be superfluous. However, it isn’t Calvinistic perseverance but once saved always saved that holds that “no matter what” all who come to faith will be saved in the end.

Calvinistic perseverance doesn't hold that all the once saved will be saved in the end “no matter what”. Instead, Calvinism holds that they will be saved in the end because they will persevere to the end. In other words, Calvinism sees final salvation as conditioned on perseverance in faith, even though it sees God’s irresistible grace as assuring this perseverance. This means that classic Calvnism and Arminianism aren't as different as one might think. Both see final salvation as conditioned on perseverance. Both even see passages that warn believers to continue in faith (Co. 1:22-23, etc) as having the same function, that function being to admonish believers to in fact persevere. The only difference between how the two view Scripture's warnings is that Calvinism sees God as 100% successful with these warnings while Arminianism sees God as only partially successful.

Yes, I understand that this can at first sounds nonsensical. Again, the common arguement is that if God absolutely assures that all the saved will be saved in the end, then God warning them would be superfluous. However, this misses the point of Calvinistic perseverance. The point is that God doesn’t assure this “no matter what” but instead assures that they will persevere. Furthermore, a primary means by which God assures perseverance is with the warnings of Scripture, which even Arminianism sees as function to bring believers to persevere. Calvinism seeing God as 100% successful with these warnings doesn’t make them superfluous but instead makes them essential in assuring perseverance to the end!

This is why Paul can warn the saved Galatians who were in danger of turning from faith to works, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4), but then after warning them says, “I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine” (v. 10). Paul, therefore, sees no conflict between having to sternly warn the Galatians of being severed from Christ if they fall from grace while at the same time being confident that they won’t in fact fall. Paul understands that Apostolic warning functions to keep believers from falling and that God will succeed in these warnings. It is the Arminian and not Paul who sees God as failing in his warnings that the saved must persevere in faith to the end.

Bavinck

[Littlejoe]

Littlejoe, you say, "if you pick number 4", but I think you mean number 2.

Well...I meant #4 in the poll choices at the top of the thread....

At any rate, this is a good observation on your part; but before I pick number 2, I think there is something your perhaps missing. Calvinism typically doesn't see II Pe. 3:9 as pertaining to believers but to the elect in general. The elect in general are both those that have come to faith and those who haven't yet. Notice below that Peter says that God is “patient toward you” both in that “you” not perish but that in that you, “reach repentance”, apparently speaknig of initial conversion. Thus, while Peter’s “toward you” pertains to those to whom he writes, it doesn't pertian to them as believers but as the elect in general, some of whom haven’t yet come to faith. What Peter says is the following:

The point here is that Peter’s above talk of perishing doesn’t seem to apply strictly to believers but to the elect that haven’t yet believed. Still, I like the point you are making, in that other passages seem to speak of the threat of believes falling from faith and perishing. I even believe that Calvinist’s need to explain what these warnings mean.

As a Calvinist, I believe we should pray that believers continue in faith and hence not loose their salvation. For example, Paul prays that Christ may dwell in the Colossians hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17), which seem to be a prayer that they continue in faith and salvation. I even see Scripture as warning believes to in fact persevere in faith so that they will be saved in the end. This seems to be what Paul does when he speaks of God presenting the Colossian believers before God in the end, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard” (Co. 1:22-23). Yes, one might argue that if God assures that no matter what all who come to faith will receive final salvation , then prayers like Col. 1:17 and warnings like Co. 1:22-23 would be superfluous. However, it isn’t Calvinistic perseverance but once saved always saved that holds that “no matter what” all who come to faith will be saved in the end.

Calvinistic perseverance doesn't hold that all the once saved will be saved in the end “no matter what”. Instead, Calvinism holds that they will be saved in the end because they will persevere to the end. In other words, Calvinism sees final salvation as conditioned on perseverance in faith, even though it sees God’s irresistible grace as assuring this perseverance. This means that classic Calvnism and Arminianism aren't as different as one might think. Both see final salvation as conditioned on perseverance. Both even see passages that warn believers to continue in faith (Co. 1:22-23, etc) as having the same function, that function being to admonish believers to in fact persevere. The only difference between how the two view Scripture's warnings is that Calvinism sees God as 100% successful with these warnings while Arminianism sees God as only partially successful.

Yes, I understand that this can at first sounds nonsensical. Again, the common arguement is that if God absolutely assures that all the saved will be saved in the end, then God warning them would be superfluous. However, this misses the point of Calvinistic perseverance. The point is that God doesn’t assure this “no matter what” but instead assures that they will persevere. Furthermore, a primary means by which God assures perseverance is with the warnings of Scripture, which even Arminianism sees as function to bring believers to persevere. Calvinism seeing God as 100% successful with these warnings doesn’t make them superfluous but instead makes them essential in assuring perseverance to the end!

This is why Paul can warn the saved Galatians who were in danger of turning from faith to works, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4), but then after warning them says, “I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine” (v. 10). Paul, therefore, sees no conflict between having to sternly warn the Galatians of being severed from Christ if they fall from grace while at the same time being confident that they won’t in fact fall. Paul understands that Apostolic warning functions to keep believers from falling and that God will succeed in these warnings. It is the Arminian and not Paul who sees God as failing in his warnings that the saved must persevere in faith to the end.

Bavinck

So, to summarize it, you think that Peter is writing to the elect to tell them that God is waiting for them to reach all the elect who don't yet believe?

[Bavinck]

Well...I meant #4 in the poll choices at the top of the thread....
So, to summarize it, you think that Peter is writing to the elect to tell them that God is waiting for them to reach all the elect who don't yet believe?

Well, not exactly. As I explained, Peter is writing to believers but in doing so he is writing concerning the elect, which includes those believers. Contextually, the question is why doesn’t the second coming occur immediately, and the answer is that God is patient "toward you" meaning those to whom he writes but in respect to their being elect. Hence, Peter is saying that God delays final judgment because he is patent and waiting for the all elect to come to faith and not just those to whom he writes. The wording that speaks of God's willingness that they, "should reach repentance" doesn't speak of continuing in faith but initially coming to faith. This wording you don't address, and your conclusion suggests that perhaps you missed it.

On the other hand, if I am wrong on this and Peter is speaking specifically of believers not perishing, then this passage would be similar to the many warnings of Scripture that warn believers to continue in faith to continue in salvation. As I also explained above, this is congruent with the classic Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance, even though it’s not congruent with once saved always saved.

Bavinck

[RBerman]

The word "all" is generally context-delimited. In this case, the context is, "the Lord is longsuffering toward us." (NIV translates it "toward you.") Us/You who? Christians. This passage is explaining why Christ hasn't yet returned, and the answer is that He's not done gathering all the elect to himself.

[rhutchin]

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,* not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. NKJV

This morning, Pastor preached on Evangelism. Being an arminian church, he cited 2 Peter 3:9 as a valid reason for us to be actively involved in spreading the Gospel to all people. Now, I realize there are several reasons we are to preach the Gospel to all, but of course, I began thinking that 2 Peter 3:9 has a dichotomy that in the reformed view, either negates L (limited atonement) or P (perserverance of the saints). I admit I may be setting up a false dichotomy, but after thinking it through, I can't see it. So I have set up this poll to see what folks think about that. Here is my reasoning thus far:

1) If 2 Peter is written about all mankind, and not just about christians, then Limited Atonement is not valid...

2) However, as I have seen argued by some reformed folks, 2 Peter 3:9 is written to christians, (and this seems to be a valid argument based on 1 Peter 1:1,2) and it isn't about all mankind...but then that means that some christians aren't currently saved (?)...as God doesn't want any to perish.

So, is this a valid proof? Why or why not?

If you pick number 4 then please make sure you explain why...

LJ

Any possibility that you could start from v1 (earlier if you think) and frame the argument that Peter makes and explain what 3:9 contributes to that argument? That would help people respond to your basic question. You can start with RBerman's last comment and expand on it so that we know if you agree or disagree with his basic premise (i.e., This passage is explaining why Christ hasn't yet returned, and the answer is that He's not done gathering all the elect to himself.). Your OP was a little confusing to me, so an expansion would be nice.

[lee_merrill]

In this case, the context is, "the Lord is longsuffering toward us." (NIV translates it "toward you.") Us/You who? Christians. This passage is explaining why Christ hasn't yet returned, and the answer is that He's not done gathering all the elect to himself.

But then all the translations I have seen are therefore misleading, and should read "all of you", instead of simply "all". "All" here, people will read as "everyone." In fact, some translations do have this.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2Pe 3:9 NIV, NLT is similar)

Blessings,
Lee

[RBerman]

But then all the translations I have seen are therefore misleading, and should read "all of you", instead of simply "all". "All" here, people will read as "everyone." In fact, some translations do have this.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2Pe 3:9 NIV, NLT is similar)

Read it in the context of "the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" which Peter said two verses earlier that God is planning. It's quite common to use the word "all" and expect context to make it clear which group the "all" applies to.

Me: I sent out fifty invitations. We had a great party; everybody came.
You: "Everybody" came? The whole mass of humanity came to your party?
Me: Of course not. Everybody that I invited came. Wasn't that obvious?

[rhutchin]

But then all the translations I have seen are therefore misleading, and should read "all of you", instead of simply "all". "All" here, people will read as "everyone." In fact, some translations do have this.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2Pe 3:9 NIV, NLT is similar)

Let's go with the translation. Can you explain who God is being patient with and why God is being patient with these people and how giving everyone time to repent fits in? When we read, anyone, in the verse, shouldn't we look for its antecedent and if so, where is it?

[lee_merrill]

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9 NIV)

Read it in the context of "the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" which Peter said two verses earlier that God is planning.

But the verse in question is only saying God wants all to be saved, what he will bring about is another matter.

It's quite common to use the word "all" and expect context to make it clear which group the "all" applies to.

Yet the translations are still misleading, people will think "all" means every person, you know, so the way to make it clear that the elect are meant is to qualify "all" here somehow--and certainly not to say "anyone" and "everyone."

Me: I sent out fifty invitations. We had a great party; everybody came.
You: "Everybody" came? The whole mass of humanity came to your party?
Me: Of course not. Everybody that I invited came. Wasn't that obvious?

Yes, here it's clear that you don't mean every person in the world. However, let's speak of an event where everyone could participate: "I told 50 people about the meteor shower tonight, I don't want anyone to miss it." This would arguably mean people in general, and not just these 50 you selected.

And God does want some to perish? or he doesn't care if they die? That is the logical consequence of your view here. But see Ezekiel:

"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Eze 18:32 NIV)

Let us note that these people did not repent and live, by and large, so this cannot be addressed just to the elect.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Let's go with the translation. Can you explain who God is being patient with and why God is being patient with these people and how giving everyone time to repent fits in? When we read, anyone, in the verse, shouldn't we look for its antecedent and if so, where is it?

Yes, God is patient with his people, to get the message out about salvation.

"... as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming." (2Pe 3:12 NIV)

The faster we get to work, the sooner the Lord will come, it would seem!

Blessings,
Lee

[RBerman]

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9 NIV)


But the verse in question is only saying God wants all to be saved, what he will bring about is another matter.

It seems to me that the questions "What does God want?" and "What will God bring about?" are very closely related. We're talking about an omnipotent Being, after all. He gets what He wants.

Yet the translations are still misleading, people will think "all" means every person, you know, so the way to make it clear that the elect are meant is to qualify "all" here somehow--and certainly not to say "anyone" and "everyone."

See the example conversation in my last post. It only becomes misleading when people get in the bad habit of prooftexting with isolated verses, out of their original context. In the flow of Peter's thought, it seems clear to me how "anyone" and "everyone" are delimited. But I'll grant you that if that one sentence is ripped from its context, it could mean any number of things, including what you suggest. That's an excellent argument for not taking any verse in isolation, don't you think?

Yes, here it's clear that you don't mean every person in the world. However, let's speak of an event where everyone could participate: "I told 50 people about the meteor shower tonight, I don't want anyone to miss it." This would arguably mean people in general, and not just these 50 you selected.

And you did what you could, within your power. Perhaps 50 people is the best you can do. What's the best God can do, if He wants to?

And God does want some to perish? or he doesn't care if they die? That is the logical consequence of your view here. But see Ezekiel:

"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Eze 18:32 NIV)

There you go again, taking a verse out of context. Ezekiel 18 as a chapter is a message given to God's children. As for your question of whether God has created specifically for the purpose of destroying them in a way that glorifies him, see posts earlier in this thread that cite Exodus and Romans on the matter.

[Obsidian]

It seems to me that the questions "What does God want?" and "What will God bring about?" are very closely related. We're talking about an omnipotent Being, after all. He gets what He wants.

Not if he wants 2+2 to equal 3.

And not if he wants two contradictory things.

Read it in the context of "the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" which Peter said two verses earlier that God is planning. It's quite common to use the word "all" and expect context to make it clear which group the "all" applies to.

I think your explanation is weak, because we were all ungodly men at one point, and yet we are not going to perish. Which group does the "all" apply to in your mind, the people who are not ungodly? That wouldn't make much sense because if you're not ungodly then there's no point in repenting. The "all" seems to be referring to the ungodly who are going to be destroyed, not to any select group of invitees. There's no delimitation at all mentioned in the passage. God doesn't want to destroy them, but he will do it anyway if they don't repent.

[RBerman]

Not if he wants 2+2 to equal 3. And not if he wants two contradictory things.

What are the "two contradictory things" in this case?

I think your explanation is weak, because we were all ungodly men at one point, and yet we are not going to perish. Which group does the "all" apply to in your mind, the people who are not ungodly? That wouldn't make much sense because if you're not ungodly then there's no point in repenting. The "all" seems to be referring to the ungodly who are going to be destroyed, not to any select group of invitees. There's no delimitation at all mentioned in the passage. God doesn't want to destroy them, but he will do it anyway if they don't repent.

The passage refers to those who are still ungodly at the time of the final judgment, not those who had previously been ungodly but have since been justified, regenerated, and adopted by God.