2 Peter 3:9 & James White

[brett]

2Pet. 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.

In “the Potter’s Freedom” James White offers this exegesis on 2Pet. 3:9, in an attempt to refute Dr. Norm Geisler's position that "all" plainly does not mean "all sorts" nor "all the elect." For the sake of brevity I’ve skipped over some portions, but you can find the entire section in his book on pages 145-150. The bolded underlined portions are my focus, but I’ve tried to include most of the relevant context.

But the next thing that stands out upon the reading of the passage is the clear identification of the audience to which Peter is speaking. When speaking of the mockers he refers to them in the third person, as “them.” But everywhere else he speaks directly to his audience as the “beloved” and “you.” ..... This is vitally important, for the assumption made by the Arminian is that “you” refers to everyone. Likewise, then, when it says “not wishing for any to perish” but “all to come to repentance,” it is assumed that the “any” and “all” refers to anyone at all of the human race. Yet, the context indicates that the audience is quite specific...... 2 Peter 1:1-3 tells us the specific identity of the audience to which Peter is writing:

2Pet. 1:1 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 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

Peter writes to a specific group, not to all of mankind. “To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours.” This not only refers to faith as a gift, as we will see in a later chapter, but it surely limits the context to the saved, for they have received this faith “by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” .... There is nothing in chapter 3 that indicates a change in audience, and much to tell us the audience remains exactly the same.

Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the Arminian is badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really saying. The patience of the Lord is displayed toward His elect people (the “you” of verse 9). Therefore, the “not wishing any to perish” must be limited to the same group already in view: the elect. In the same way, the “all to come to repentance” must be the very same group. In essence Peter is saying the coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of God can be gathered in...... There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person to come to repentance. Instead, it is clearly His plan and His will that all the elect come to repentance, and they most assuredly will do so.

You’ll notice the subtle equating of terms in this last paragraph. James White equates “those who have received a faith” with “the elect.” Only one problem. Not all the elect are believers. The elect can be divided into two categories — the already believing elect, and the not yet believing elect. Peter categorically designates the former as his audience— ”those who have received.... .” James White subtly tries to designate the latter.

Toward the end of the section, in an attempt to remedy this obvious problem, James White adds:

At the point of Peter’s writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this book was yet future......

This is hardly a remedy. If James White is to be consistent with this method of interpretation, he would have to say that God desires the already believing elect to come to repentance. But since he doesn’t believe that either, he just kind of switches the two categories of the elect and hopes no one will notice. Sorry Mr. White, in order for this interpretation to be even remotely possible, Peter would've had to say, 2Pet. 1:1 .... to those who will receive a faith of the same kind as ours...

This is a classic example of force fitting a passage into a theology. James White realized the devastating implications to Calvinism if God desires everyone to be saved. I can’t think of any other motivation for applying such an awkward hermeneutic to such an explicit verse.

Does anyone want to defend Mr. White on this one?

[Xmansmommy]

[GoBahnsen]

2Pet. 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.

In “the Potter’s Freedom” James White offers this exegesis on 2Pet. 3:9, in an attempt to refute Dr. Norm Geisler's position that "all" plainly does not mean "all sorts" nor "all the elect." For the sake of brevity I’ve skipped over some portions, but you can find the entire section in his book on pages 145-150. The bolded underlined portions are my focus, but I’ve tried to include most of the relevant context.



You’ll notice the subtle equating of terms in this last paragraph. James White equates “those who have received a faith” with “the elect.” Only one problem. Not all the elect are believers. The elect can be divided into two categories — the already believing elect, and the not yet believing elect. Peter categorically designates the former as his audience— ”those who have received.... .” James White subtly tries to designate the latter.

Toward the end of the section, in an attempt to remedy this obvious problem, James White adds:



This is hardly a remedy. If James White is to be consistent with this method of interpretation, he would have to say that God desires the already believing elect to come to repentance. But since he doesn’t believe that either, he just kind of switches the two categories of the elect and hopes no one will notice. Sorry Mr. White, in order for this interpretation to be even remotely possible, Peter would've had to say, 2Pet. 1:1 .... to those who will receive a faith of the same kind as ours...

This is a classic example of force fitting a passage into a theology. James White realized the devastating implications to Calvinism if God desires everyone to be saved. I can’t think of any other motivation for applying such an awkward hermeneutic to such an explicit verse.

Does anyone want to defend Mr. White on this one?

Well since xmansmommy is waiting with popcorn, how can I disappoint. First of all, we know that James White is a staunch Calvinist and therefore infallible.

Ok, not so funny? I'm not sure what you are all excited about brett. Do you feel like you caught a big Calvinist in an error? I'm a Calvinist and I believe God does desire all to be saved, but He has NOT purposed and ordained such. It doesn't devastate Calvinism for God to express a desire for that which He has planned to not have.

I was using an analogy with another guy here on a different thread that illustrates my point like this: Suppose I said I was not going to eat any apple pie after dinner. Yet when desert time came I commented on how beautiful the pie looked and I wish I could have a piece. Yet being a man of my word I stay with my original plan and purpose and refuse to eat any. Others might get together afterward and compare notes. One might say, he was trying to eat a piece. Another might say, no he wasn't, he said beforehand that he would not eat any. Another might say, well he would have if he could have. Another might say, he may have desired to partake, but His commitment to refrain did not waver and so he desired that which he knew he would not allow himself. I like the last one best.

[brett]

I'm not sure what you are all excited about brett. Do you feel like you caught a big Calvinist in an error?

yup!

I'm a Calvinist and I believe God does desire all to be saved, but He has NOT purposed and ordained such. It doesn't devastate Calvinism for God to express a desire for that which He has planned to not have.

Glad to see you agree. Some text just can't be spun.

I was using an analogy with another guy here on a different thread that illustrates my point like this: Suppose I said I was not going to eat any apple pie after dinner. Yet when desert time came I commented on how beautiful the pie looked and I wish I could have a piece. Yet being a man of my word I stay with my original plan and purpose and refuse to eat any. Others might get together afterward and compare notes. One might say, he was trying to eat a piece. Another might say, no he wasn't, he said beforehand that he would not eat any. Another might say, well he would have if he could have. Another might say, he may have desired to partake, but His commitment to refrain did not waver and so he desired that which he knew he would not allow himself. I like the last one best.

I don't think you truly understand how devastating this truth is to your system. Your analogy falls short because God doesn't have any negative consiquences to fear. He doesn't have to count carbs. Your view also implies that God wanted someone to get saved and failed. And there is no prior commitment with God. He knows all from eternity past. And sinse man's will is no factor at all, you basically have God withholding what He desires from Himself for absolutely no reason at all. Freewill theology doesn't have this problem.

James White realizes what a problem this is (as do most other big calvinist thinkers) which is why he so passionately objects to the notion that God loves and desires all to be saved. I'm guessing most of calvinists on this board feel the same. I'm dissapointed none of the are stepping up to defend him. Guess I'll just keep waiting.

[GoBahnsen]

]yup!



Glad to see you agree. Some text just can't be spun.

First of all I'm not convinced you caught James in foul play. I really like him as an apologist and I don't think you have disproved him. Perhaps you could give me your argument in "other words". I'm in agreement with James on his interpretation, however I can also allow for God possibly "desiring" that the non elect not perish. I don't think God is expressing that desire here in 2Pet. I agree with James White.

But God has expressed that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So I can, as a Reformed believer, understand God's tender heart toward all men, yet too- His wrath abides on the wicked and will be poured out on them if they don't repent. But since God is in the business of granting repentance as well, He still holds all the cards in Salvation. There is just no way that we humans ever get completely comfortable with YHWH. He is simply too much for any of us to fathom, and well should He be. If we had Him all figured out, I dare say we would have a god of our own imagination.

I don't think you truly understand how devastating this truth is to your system. Your analogy falls short because God doesn't have any negative consiquences to fear. He doesn't have to count carbs. Your view also implies that God wanted someone to get saved and failed. And there is no prior commitment with God. He knows all from eternity past. And sinse man's will is no factor at all, you basically have God withholding what He desires from Himself for absolutely no reason at all. Freewill theology doesn't have this problem.

It isn't about negative consequences to fear, the anology was about a prior decreeing if you will. God starts off creation with all things known and planned. That does not mean that He will not express His desire for something that He has planned to not have.
How do you know it was about counting carbs? You assumed wrong. I'm allergic to a certain spice in the pie. That's why I determined to not have any, but I can still express good thoughts about the pie. No one knew that at the table, it was my secret. They all speculated without that knowledge.

James White realizes what a problem this is (as do most other big calvinist thinkers) which is why he so passionately objects to the notion that God loves and desires all to be saved. I'm guessing most of calvinists on this board feel the same. I'm dissapointed none of the are stepping up to defend him. Guess I'll just keep waiting.

James will be passionate that no one whom God loves with salvific love will perish, so am I. I guess in your view, God can set His affection on a soul before eternity wanting and desiring to save that soul, but because of "freewill" and the souls wrong use of it, God will not get what He wanted to have. This I disagree with. The one God knows will not believe, has always known that, has planned creation accordingly, that one God does not set His salvific love upon. Though God may express some kind of love toward the doomed creature. This expression you take to mean salvific love. James and I will disagree.

We will disagree not because we are cold hearted Calvinists, but because we have come to know a God Who is more powerful than our objections. A God who has rescued us who believe, and we know that if He did not, we would never have believed. We are defending the bigger doctrine of God being the Author and Finisher of our faith. "He who began a good work in us"... NOT we who began a good work. We are defending Salvation is of the Lord. We will not let man say that he made himself to differ from others. It isn't about, God doesn't love everybody, it's about God's love for His own people and that is why He has a people. We love Him because He first loved us.

[brett]

First of all I'm not convinced you caught James in foul play. I really like him as an apologist and I don't think you have disproved him. Perhaps you could give me your argument in "other words". I'm in agreement with James on his interpretation, however I can also allow for God possibly "desiring" that the non elect not perish. I don't think God is expressing that desire here in 2Pet. I agree with James White.

My argument was pretty simple. I don't think I'm capable of making it simpler without at least some interaction. If you agree with James White's exegesis, defend him. Tell me where my critique is wrong or ambiguous.

But God has expressed that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So I can, as a Reformed believer, understand God's tender heart toward all men, yet too- His wrath abides on the wicked and will be poured out on them if they don't repent. But since God is in the business of granting repentance as well, He still holds all the cards in Salvation. There is just no way that we humans ever get completely comfortable with YHWH. He is simply too much for any of us to fathom, and well should He be. If we had Him all figured out, I dare say we would have a god of our own imagination.

This mystery card in this case is just a cop out. And taking no pleasure in man's reprobation, does not imply tender love toward him either. There must be other texts you have in mind.

It isn't about negative consequences to fear, the anology was about a prior decreeing if you will. God starts off creation with all things known and planned. That does not mean that He will not express His desire for something that He has planned to not have.
How do you know it was about counting carbs? You assumed wrong. I'm allergic to a certain spice in the pie. That's why I determined to not have any, but I can still express good thoughts about the pie. No one knew that at the table, it was my secret. They all speculated without that knowledge.

So if you have no problem saying God won't save certain individuals because of a certain mysterious unrevealed reason, why rule out man's freewill? Keeping with your logic, it could be reasoned that though God could have saved all men, he chose not to save those that responded a certain way to His grace. This speaks nothing of failure, but simply of God's own soveriegn choice.

James will be passionate that no one whom God loves with salvific love will perish, so am I. I guess in your view, God can set His affection on a soul before eternity wanting and desiring to save that soul, but because of "freewill" and the souls wrong use of it, God will not get what He wanted to have.

Don't you see that's the same scenerio you've set up for yourself?? In your view, God wants all to be saved, but in the end doesn't get what He wants. Show me how you get out of this first.

This I disagree with. The one God knows will not believe, has always known that, has planned creation accordingly, that one God does not set His salvific love upon. Though God may express some kind of love toward the doomed creature. This expression you take to mean salvific love. James and I will disagree.

You and he disagree more than you think.

We will disagree not because we are cold hearted Calvinists, but because we have come to know a God Who is more powerful than our objections. A God who has rescued us who believe, and we know that if He did not, we would never have believed. We are defending the bigger doctrine of God being the Author and Finisher of our faith. "He who began a good work in us"... NOT we who began a good work. We are defending Salvation is of the Lord. We will not let man say that he made himself to differ from others. It isn't about, God doesn't love everybody, it's about God's love for His own people and that is why He has a people. We love Him because He first loved us.

Well, I disagree with you that I'm special. I don't put myself positionally above anyone. I'd be careful approaching God's throne with that attitude. This is exactly where many of the Israelites went astray.

Apart from that, freewill christians also believe God rescued those who believe. We also believe, had He not given us grace, we never would have believed. We also believe that God will finish the work he started in us (regeneration). We also believe salvation is of the Lord, for we realize the believers need rescuing, for they do not have a righteousness of their own.

Your back to this whole notion of faith is a work, and accepting gifts is worthy of partial credit. This unproven assumption seems to be the foundation of your entire system.

[GoBahnsen]

My argument was pretty simple. I don't think I'm capable of making it simpler without at least some interaction. If you agree with James White's exegesis, defend him. Tell me where my critique is wrong or ambiguous.

Suit yourself

This mystery card in this case is just a cop out. And taking no pleasure in man's reprobation, does not imply tender love toward him either. There must be other texts you have in mind.

Yeah we Calvinists better be able to explain God at all points or we are cop out's.

So if you have no problem saying God won't save certain individuals because of a certain mysterious unrevealed reason, why rule out man's freewill?

I don't, I believe in man's freewill as far as it goes. And I don't think it goes as far as Arminians take it.

Keeping with your logic, it could be reasoned that though God could have saved all men, he chose not to save those that responded a certain way to His grace. This speaks nothing of failure, but simply of God's own soveriegn choice.

The difference between you and I, is I believe God makes the difference in the elect. You believe the sinner makes the final difference. We Christians are a sickening lot no doubt. I wonder why my girls are the brats they are at times. We adults are not much different. Sometimes I hate this place. Yeah I know...why don't I pick up my marbles and go home? Not a bad idea.

Don't you see that's the same scenerio you've set up for yourself?? In your view, God wants all to be saved, but in the end doesn't get what He wants. Show me how you get out of this first.

Enjoy your popcorn.

You and he disagree more than you think.

Probably, he is a Baptistic Calvinist.

Well, I disagree with you that I'm special. I don't put myself positionally above anyone. I'd be careful approaching God's throne with that attitude. This is exactly where many of the Israelites went astray.

I can see you on death row brett. All your fellow prisoners cheering you as you refuse the pardon of the Governor unless He is willing to pardon all. Stay with them then. Refuse to be God's chosen seed. Refuse to be treated in a way you do not deserve unless God will treat all that way. Refuse to be special to God if that's the way you must have it. Continue to reject the God of the pardon unless He becomes more merciful, the way you see him.

Apart from that, freewill christians also believe God rescued those who believe. We also believe, had He not given us grace, we never would have believed. We also believe that God will finish the work he started in us (regeneration). We also believe salvation is of the Lord, for we realize the believers need rescuing, for they do not have a righteousness of their own. Your back to this whole notion that faith is a work, and accepting gifts is worthy of partial credit.

Like I said, enjoy your popcorn.

[brett]

Suit yourself

Amazing. But that's cool, you can ignore the issue as long as you wish. It's a free world!

Yeah we Calvinists better be able to explain God at all points or we are cop out's.

I didn't aply this to all calvinists, just you. It's seems you define all grave contradictions and great mysteries.

The difference between you and I, is I believe God makes the difference in the elect. You believe the sinner makes the final difference.

uhh, i explained this fallacy in one of those sections you refused to respond to. Isn't that ironic?

I can see you on death row brett. All your fellow prisoners cheering you as you refuse the pardon of the Governor unless He is willing to pardon all. Stay with them then. Refuse to be God's chosen seed. Refuse to be treated in a way you do not deserve unless God will treat all that way. Refuse to be special to God if that's the way you must have it. Continue to reject the God of the pardon unless He becomes more merciful, the way you see him.

Wow, quite and accusation. Just for the record I would gladly accept a pardon from God, even if it was because He only loved me. But this flies in the face of the biblical evidence, both in my view and yours. James White disagrees with us both, but at least he's being consistant.

Also, the analogy is not consistant with my view. Prevenient grace frees all men. If they use their freedom to return to their old master, God grants their wish.

2 Pet. 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."

[rhutchin]

2Pet. 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.

In “the Potter’s Freedom” James White offers this exegesis on 2Pet. 3:9, in an attempt to refute Dr. Norm Geisler's position that "all" plainly does not mean "all sorts" nor "all the elect." For the sake of brevity I’ve skipped over some portions, but you can find the entire section in his book on pages 145-150. The bolded underlined portions are my focus, but I’ve tried to include most of the relevant context.

You’ll notice the subtle equating of terms in this last paragraph. James White equates “those who have received a faith” with “the elect.” Only one problem. Not all the elect are believers. The elect can be divided into two categories — the already believing elect, and the not yet believing elect. Peter categorically designates the former as his audience— ”those who have received.... .” James White subtly tries to designate the latter.

Toward the end of the section, in an attempt to remedy this obvious problem, James White adds:



This is hardly a remedy. If James White is to be consistent with this method of interpretation, he would have to say that God desires the already believing elect to come to repentance. But since he doesn’t believe that either, he just kind of switches the two categories of the elect and hopes no one will notice. Sorry Mr. White, in order for this interpretation to be even remotely possible, Peter would've had to say, 2Pet. 1:1 .... to those who will receive a faith of the same kind as ours...

This is a classic example of force fitting a passage into a theology. James White realized the devastating implications to Calvinism if God desires everyone to be saved. I can’t think of any other motivation for applying such an awkward hermeneutic to such an explicit verse.

Does anyone want to defend Mr. White on this one?

I think we first need to be a little honest and admit that no one, neither the Calvinist, nor the Arminian, nor anyone else, has been able to decipher this verse. The verse is fraught with difficulty.

So, let’s begin by seeing if there is anything in the verse that can be agreed to by all sides to the debate. I will start with the following.

1. The Lord is not slow about His promise,…

I propose that the promise in view is (from v 4) the promise that Christ would return, i.e., the second coming of Christ.

2. …as some count slowness,…

I do not see this as bearing on the issues at hand except to suggest that the “some” who count slowness are not among those to whom Peter writes.

3. …but is patient toward you,… or “us” in the Majority text

The “you” (or us) is the audience identified by James White and consists of those to whom Peter writes. If “us” is the correct term, Peter includes himself and the interpretation is easier. From 1:1, it appears to be “those who have obtained like precious faith” [NKJV] If not, then we can look at the arguments for it being another group of people identified prior to this verse and map it to that verse and those people.

The patience (or longsuffering) appears from v15 to tied to “salvation.” The exegete must both explain the “you” and tie it to salvation.

4. …not wishing for any to perish…

Here we have two possibilities:

A. God is longsuffering to the “you” because He is not willing for any of the “you” to perish. (Where “you” can be either of two groups)

B. God is longsuffering to the “you” because He is not willing for the “not you” to perish.

This can be pursued once point 3 is resolved and the “you” are identified.

5. …but for all to come to repentance.

Here the issue is the identity of the “all.”

The Calvinist has a problem explaining how the “all” come to repentance since it appears that the “all” have already come to repentance. Is the Calvinist forced to argue that the saved somehow still need repentance?

The Arminian has the problem of explaining how the “unsaved all” would come to repentance as a consequence of God’s longsuffering, or salvation, toward the saved. Is the Arminian forced to argue that the “you” are the unsaved against the simple reading of the Greek text?

This issue should be saved until the end after the previous points are resolved.

Granted, White fudges the details, so, what unfudged position do you take?

[brett]

Hi rhutchin. Good to hear you also reject White's solution. I'm still wondering if any calvinists here think he's right on (besides GoB who declined to comment).

I have a lot more to say, but can't right now. Hopefully I'll get a response to the rest of your post off by morning.

[reasonabledoubt]

This may seem simplistic but how is it possible that God WANTS all to be saved, and yet all are not saved? Whether Calvinist or Arminian- what does that matter. If God wills something, it should happen, right? So if God wants something to happen, it happens. What can stop God or thwart his desires? If he wants all to be saved, they will be saved.
If they are not all saved, then it is obvious that God doesn't want to save them all, actually. He may want it on some level, but since he can do what he wants unimpeded, he obviously wants something else more than the salvation of all.

[rhutchin]

Hi rhutchin. Good to hear you also reject White's solution. I'm still wondering if any calvinists here think he's right on (besides GoB who declined to comment).

I have a lot more to say, but can't right now. Hopefully I'll get a response to the rest of your post off by morning.

Not sure that I reject White's solution even though I was not impressed by the Potter overall (not that I disagree with the premise; just the way White argues the case or fails to argue). I don't think we have laid the groundwork to accept or reject White at this point. I'll read this section again.

I was reading Kistemaker on this verse and he takes the last part to apply to all people, not just the elect. However, he sliced the last part of the verse from the first part and did not tie the two together. Not very satisfying if one is looking for an exegesis of the verse.

[rhutchin]

This may seem simplistic but how is it possible that God WANTS all to be saved, and yet all are not saved? Whether Calvinist or Arminian- what does that matter. If God wills something, it should happen, right? So if God wants something to happen, it happens. What can stop God or thwart his desires? If he wants all to be saved, they will be saved.
If they are not all saved, then it is obvious that God doesn't want to save them all, actually. He may want it on some level, but since he can do what he wants unimpeded, he obviously wants something else more than the salvation of all.

John Piper argues for two wills of God as do others, so there is support for this position.

However, what God wills or does not will in 2 Peter 3:9 is only part of the story. The more difficult part is explaining what this has to do with the overall context of 2 Peter 3. Once one defines the "you" (or us) in the first part of the verse, it is then necessary to explain how this ties into that which God wills in the second part and then to explain what this adds to what Peter is saying in the entire chapter.

[brett]

I think we first need to be a little honest and admit that no one, neither the Calvinist, nor the Arminian, nor anyone else, has been able to decipher this verse. The verse is fraught with difficulty.

I would suggest it’s the simplicity, not complexity that’s causing the difficulties.

So, let’s begin by seeing if there is anything in the verse that can be agreed to by all sides to the debate. I will start with the following.

1. The Lord is not slow about His promise,…

I propose that the promise in view is (from v 4) the promise that Christ would return, i.e., the second coming of Christ.

2. …as some count slowness,…

I do not see this as bearing on the issues at hand except to suggest that the “some” who count slowness are not among those to whom Peter writes.

So far so good.

3. …but is patient toward you,… or “us” in the Majority text

The “you” (or us) is the audience identified by James White and consists of those to whom Peter writes. If “us” is the correct term, Peter includes himself and the interpretation is easier. From 1:1, it appears to be “those who have obtained like precious faith” [NKJV] If not, then we can look at the arguments for it being another group of people identified prior to this verse and map it to that verse and those people.

The patience (or longsuffering) appears from v15 to tied to “salvation.” The exegete must both explain the “you” and tie it to salvation.

Actually, no he doesn’t. I disagree with your entire approach. Now the exegete will always do well identifying the audience, don’t get me wrong. But that does not mean they are the object of every statement. I’ll explain.

4. …not wishing for any to perish…

Here we have two possibilities:

A. God is longsuffering to the “you” because He is not willing for any of the “you” to perish. (Where “you” can be either of two groups)

B. God is longsuffering to the “you” because He is not willing for the “not you” to perish.

What about option C? He’s not willing for any to perish, including the audience. After all, that is what the text says. Here’s an illustration. Let’s say I walked up to a small crowd of people and said,

“God wants you folks to repent. He loves everyone, and wants all to be saved.”

What would they think I was saying? The first sentence was obviously directed toward the crowd. Would the crowd then take the second statement to mean “....He loves everyone of you in the crowd, and wants all of you in the crowd to be saved.”?? No, for had I meant that, I would have simply said, “He loves everyone of you, and wants all of you to be saved.” Now this wouldn’t imply that God loved only them, but it wouldn’t explicitly state the opposite either.

You see the second sentence is simply offered as support for the first one. God wants you in this crowd to repent. Why does this make sense? He loves everyone. No one in the crowd would be confused by this.

This can be pursued once point 3 is resolved and the “you” are identified.

Ok then, lets say Peter is directing his statements toward those in the church who may not have truly converted yet. I think there’s strong evidence for this in the previous chapters.

5. …but for all to come to repentance.

Here the issue is the identity of the “all.”

The Calvinist has a problem explaining how the “all” come to repentance since it appears that the “all” have already come to repentance. Is the Calvinist forced to argue that the saved somehow still need repentance?

No, the calvinist needs to explain how it is that God desires the salvation of everyone.

The Arminian has the problem of explaining how the “unsaved all” would come to repentance as a consequence of God’s longsuffering, or salvation, toward the saved. Is the Arminian forced to argue that the “you” are the unsaved against the simple reading of the Greek text?

No, the simple reading of the text says that God loves all, which supports Peter’s statement that God is patient toward them (Peter’s audience). It’s illogical to try to limit “all” to the audience.

Granted, White fudges the details, so, what unfudged position do you take?

My position is that Peter is telling his audience about God’s patience toward them and supporting it by proclaiming God’s love toward all. This is not complex. It’s simple and explicit.

I suggest to you that this is the only reasonable way to understand the passage. Anything else is fudging it. This is why Kistemaker and many other calvinists have no choice but to accept it and then try to fit the two-wills argument into their scheme. The problem is, the two-wills argument has even more difficulties for the calvinist, as I’ll explain in the next post.

[brett]

This may seem simplistic but how is it possible that God WANTS all to be saved, and yet all are not saved? Whether Calvinist or Arminian- what does that matter. If God wills something, it should happen, right? So if God wants something to happen, it happens. What can stop God or thwart his desires? If he wants all to be saved, they will be saved.
If they are not all saved, then it is obvious that God doesn't want to save them all, actually. He may want it on some level, but since he can do what he wants unimpeded, he obviously wants something else more than the salvation of all.

John Piper argues for two wills of God as do others, so there is support for this position.

The two wills argument only works if you allow human freewill into the equation. For calvinists like James White it can’t possibly work (which is probably why he argues against it). James White and, if I’m not mistaken, John Piper both believe that human freewill is logically impossible. They argue that God cannot be completely free if man is also free (in the libertarian sense). Thus the title of the book, “The Potter’s Freedom.” But if God is the only being that has an effective will, then it becomes very difficult to explain how His desires aren’t always realized.

As a father, I have final say in my house in what my children are permitted to do. If I choose to give them some freedom, I may desire them to use it a certain way, but am also willing to allow for the possibility of wrongdoing. Now I know the possibility of foolishness exists and is even inevitable, but I’m still willing to allow it. Yet I desire they always use their freedom wisely. You see the two wills argument works beautify in this scenario. But add the calvinistic view of human freedom and it completely fails. If I’m always in complete control of every decision my children make, it’s unimaginable how they could ever disappoint me. My moral desire & actual will for them will always match up.