2 Peter 3:9

[Arial]

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. (2 Peter 3:9)

Two things before I begin.

1. This thread though in the category of Arminianism and Calvinism is not referring to historic Arminianism, though I will use that term, but more to the semi-Pelagian view that is prevalent in much of Christendom today.
2. Though the context of the title passage will be investigated, the primary purpose of the thread is to point out the inconsistency of the use of context that occurs in this interpretation by Arminianists.

Let's look at an example from everyday life of context and how we automatically put things into their context to determine what a person means.

• The band member became angry with staff.
• The banned member became angry with staff.

If the word "band"/"banned" is written as it is above, there is no confusion in terms. However, if it is spoken who is speaking and who is being spoken to determines what form of the word is being used. Its context. If the speaker is speaking to the high school music class automatically the word is band.

If the president of a club or organization is speaking to the club members, we automatically contextualize the word as banned.

So, all humans (as a general principle) know the importance of context, we put everything into context automatically. Everything we see, hear, or read. But for some reason I have found that within Arminianism there is one book that does not require contextual analysis to ascertain its meaning, and that is the Bible. Sometimes it is done correctly and automatically and at other times it becomes entirely irrelevant. It is interpreted through confirmation bias.

An example from Scripture that illustrates the inconsistency in the use of context typical of Arminianism to determine the meaning becomes clear.

In Matt 8:28-32 is the account of Jesus casting demons out of two men and Jesus sending the demons into a herd of pigs, and the pigs drowning in the sea. In 33-34 it says this:

The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.

The Arminian will never make a whole doctrine out of that and argue furiously that "all the city" means every person without exception in that city came out to meet Jesus. And they will never lay it alongside 2 Peter 3:9 when they are arguing for the meaning of "all" to mean anything other than all without exception. The context of Matt 8:34 is accepted automatically as "a great many" or a "huge crowd". Unless of course there weren't very many people who lived in that city, which we are not told. It does not matter to the one who will remove 2 Peter from all context, as Matt 8:34 is not a doctrinal statement and if anything would be detrimental to the one they are making of 2 Peter, simply to show that "all" does not in every place mean everyone without exception.

However, the removal of 2 Peter 3:9 from its context, is an axe laid at the sovereignty of God and salvation through Christ alone, no matter what spin it is conjured through.

Who is Peter writing to?
2 Peter 1:1

​

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

He is writing to believers--those already in Christ.

Why is he writing these things to this particular group of believers?

To encourage them to stand firm in the faith, steadfast in Christian conduct (3-9)

10Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

What made this encouragement necessary?

False prophets were attempting to infiltrate the church.

2 Peter 2:1

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

What was one particular teaching were they struggling with?

That the day of the Lord's return, the resurrection and consummation they hoped for was never going to happen.

2 Peter 3:3-4

knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4They 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.”

Why does he say the following and who does it apply to?

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. 9The 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.

Given what was said before this, the central point to the issue is that it does not matter how long it takes or what is going on in the world. the Day of the Lord's return, the resurrection and consummation of their hope is certain. The delay is for all to reach repentance. "All" without exception? Or "all" of a particular group? That is the question.

Since we know from Scripture that not all without exception, no matter how long the delay, will reach repentance, what is Peter saying? Who are the "all" and the "any"? How would the recipients of Peter's letter have understood this?

To help in ascertaining that we need to look at how believers are addressed in other epistles and we learn what those Peter is addressing here already know.

As the "called"

• Romans 1:6–7 — “Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ… called to be saints”
• Romans 8:28 — “To them who are the called according to his purpose”
• Romans 8:30 — “Whom he predestinated, them he also called…” (Also, Rom 9: 24; 1 Cor 1:24; Heb 3:1; Jude :1:1)

As the "elect"

​

• Romans 8:33 — “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect?”
• Colossians 3:12 — “Put on therefore, as the elect of God…”
• 2 Timothy 2:10 — “For the elect’s sakes…” (Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9)

As the "chosen"

• Ephesians 1:4 — “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”
• 2 Thessalonians 2:13 — “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation”
• James 2:5 — “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith…”
• 1 Peter 2:4 — “A living stone, chosen of God”
• 1 Peter 2:6 — “Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect…

The recipients of Peter's letter would have understood "patient towards you" to refer to themselves as believers.

They would have understood "not wishing that any should perish" as the "any" referring to the elect, called, chosen.

They would have understood "that all should reach repentance" to mean all the elect, chosen, called.

They would have understood it to mean that the full number that God chose to give to Christ, would be called---hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow him, and then, and only then, would Christ return.

When the Arminianist uses this passage as a proof text to argue against the Reformed view of election and predestination the purpose and intent of Peter's statement is changed.

Instead of Peter's point of eschatological certainty, it becomes, salvific possibility. Peter answers why the delay, not why some are saved and others are not.​

​

It has Peter's "delay" presenting indecision rather than completion (redemptive purpose finished). John 10 sheep hearing his voice. Romans 8-11 (fullness themes). Revelation's fixed number imagery.​

​

​

 

[Carbon]

Lots of good stuff there. And as you stated, Paul does answer to why the delay, and not why some are saved and some are not. Great points

 

[Carbon]

I think though many or perhaps most synergists, loose focus on the points you brought out and put a lot or most of their effort into proving some of the points of Calvinism wrong instead, at all costs.

 

[makesends]

Since we know from Scripture that not all without exception, no matter how long the delay, will reach repentance, what is Peter saying? Who are the "all" and the "any"? How would the recipients of Peter's letter have understood this?

Not that this resolves anything, nor to give Arminianists credit, but there is a third option they generally admit to: In the modern English language, the subjunctive, "might", indicates chance, or the unknown, and so, free will. Thus, they excuse "all means ALL" because, to them, it is still a limited number—it is within a group—those who do chose salvation. But, apparently, "nobody, (well, ok, 'maybe', 'sort of', God,) knows —but he doesn't determine it!"

(Wife's notes in the margins of the pastor's sermon notes: "Logic weak here; speak loudly and pound the pulpit!")

 

[makesends]

I think though many or perhaps most synergists, loose focus on the points you brought out and put a lot or most of their effort into proving some of the points of Calvinism wring instead, at all costs.

You've got a point there! Some seem to take it as God's mission for them to wage war against the Satanic forces of Calvinism.

 

[Carbon]

You've got a point there! Some seem to take it as God's mission for them to wage war against the Satanic forces of Calvinism.

Yep. And when it comes right down to it. Calvinism goes so much further than the acronym T U L I P.
TULIP is just a briefing

 

[fastfredy0]

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus, the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. The statement does not intend to say that all human beings without exception would hate Christians, since at least the Christians themselves would love one another.
• John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.
• Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. “All” without exception would validate universalism.

Yada, yada
my 2 cents worth

 

[makesends]

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus, the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. The statement does not intend to say that all human beings without exception would hate Christians, since at least the Christians themselves would love one another.
• John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.

Agreed, so far.

• Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. “All” without exception would validate universalism.

Disagree. Not that I advocate for universalism, but the use of "all" here can be seen in the negative, in some languages, and even in legal English —that is, that of, "the principle applies to all; nobody escapes it—if life and justification are to be had, it is only by that one act of righteousness."

Yada, yada
my 2 cents worth

If I can get enough Yada's together, I might be able to park 15 more minutes!

 

[Arial]

Not that this resolves anything, nor to give Arminianists credit, but there is a third option they generally admit to: In the modern English language, the subjunctive, "might", indicates chance, or the unknown, and so, free will. Thus, they excuse "all means ALL" because, to them, it is still a limited number—it is within a group—those who do chose salvation. But, apparently, "nobody, (well, ok, 'maybe', 'sort of', God,) knows —but he doesn't determine it!"

(Wife's notes in the margins of the pastor's sermon notes: "Logic weak here; speak loudly and pound the pulpit!")

Where are you getting the word "might" from?

It is true that the Arminian can argue his will is just his desire, not his decree. In fact they do and then add that what he decreed was free will. But first they need to establish that there is such a thing as a will that is free--or at least say what they mean. If God designed man as a being that makes choices, then his will is free of God in every place and every way. He will thank God for offering grace or providing enough grace to overcome our nature that is opposed to him. But he will not accept God "making" him love Christ. That, he insists, he get to do on his own.

And then typical of that human nature, justifies, even hides that demand for self-rule, by presenting his position as one of defending God. Which elevates him even more above God to think God needs to be defended.

And then they need to establish from Scripture that God did decree man would have free will in choosing to believe.

But even if they were able to do that, which of course they cannot because no such thing is in the Bible, it will not change the fact that Peter is explaining the delay of Christ's return and the consummation to those people in that letter. He did not apropos of nothing insert soteriology into the paragraph. And he certainly did not contradict everything they had already been taught about foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying.

I am convinced those receiving the epistles did not wrestle with interpretation as though it were always a massive puzzle to solve and argue about, the way modern man does.

 

[Arial]

I think though many or perhaps most synergists, loose focus on the points you brought out and put a lot or most of their effort into proving some of the points of Calvinism wrong instead, at all costs.

Your right. It isn't like I haven't pointed out the same things on multiple occasions when in conversations over it with them. It isn't so much that they lose focus, it is that they refuse to see/accept it. We can show it to them in black and white in any proof text they use, and they never address that itself. Instead, they deflect to other scriptures that they have also misused or red herring off into a different subject.

The "God of Calvinism" as they characterize it is unjust and evil, and then they present their arguments as defending his character. However, I see what is behind all the vehemence and that desire to hang on to "free choice" as the very thing that tempted Eve in the first place. "You will be as God." Implying no need of him and autonomy. A two-year-olds "I can do it myself!" They are not yet ready to surrender all.

 

[Arial]

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus, the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. The statement does not intend to say that all human beings without exception would hate Christians, since at least the Christians themselves would love one another.
• John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.
• Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. “All” without exception would validate universalism.

Yada, yada
my 2 cents worth

I didn't know whether to "love" it or "laugh". I opted for "love" as the "laugh" emoji can be ambiguous.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hello @Arial (et al), I've found that most of my otherwise reasonable Arminian friends are unwilling to discuss the meaning of v9 (as anything other than what they already believe it to be). They refuse to do so (I think) because they seem to hold it up as some sort of "sacred cow" in defense of the position that their systematic theology teaches concerning salvation and free will, while reluctantly admitting that to do so requires the removal of v9 from the context that it's written in. Remember, these are my "reasonable" Arminian friends/pastors

My go-to translation is the NASB 95', but in the case of v9, I prefer the KJV's translation (I love its use of "us-ward", just FYI ).

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.​

Also, along with what you've already pointed out about v9 above, I've also mentioned (to my Arminian friends) that v9 speaks of the Lord as longsuffering (to us-ward), which is a wondrous and wonderful thing to know if the "us-ward" is speaking of the elect* alone, but that it makes no sense in the regard to the reprobate (because why would God "patiently wait" for someone to come to saving faith who He ALREADY knows never will ).

The answers about this (by my Arminian friends who are willing to discuss it) vary, but most end up claiming that it is a "mystery" and simply move on.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf


*Arminianism teaches election, as I'm sure you know, but their version sees God predestining and electing His saints on the basis of (what they understand to be) His "foreknowledge", on our choice of Him first, IOW. Does the Semi-Pelagian believe something else than the Arminian does about that .. as well, perhaps, the "free will" Protestant?)

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Not that this resolves anything, nor to give Arminianists credit, but there is a third option they generally admit to: In the modern English language, the subjunctive, "might", indicates chance, or the unknown, and so, free will. Thus, they excuse "all means ALL" because, to them, it is still a limited number—it is within a group—those who do chose salvation. But, apparently, "nobody, (well, ok, 'maybe', 'sort of', God,) knows —but he doesn't determine it!"

(Wife's notes in the margins of the pastor's sermon notes: "Logic weak here; speak loudly and pound the pulpit!")

Where are you getting the word "might" from?

It is true that the Arminian can argue his will is just his desire, not his decree. In fact they do and then add that what he decreed was free will. But first they need to establish that there is such a thing as a will that is free--or at least say what they mean. If God designed man as a being that makes choices, then his will is free of God in every place and every way. He will thank God for offering grace or providing enough grace to overcome our nature that is opposed to him. But he will not accept God "making" him love Christ. That, he insists, he get to do on his own.

And then typical of that human nature, justifies, even hides that demand for self-rule, by presenting his position as one of defending God. Which elevates him even more above God to think God needs to be defended.

And then they need to establish from Scripture that God did decree man would have free will in choosing to believe.

But even if they were able to do that, which of course they cannot because no such thing is in the Bible, it will not change the fact that Peter is explaining the delay of Christ's return and the consummation to those people in that letter. He did not apropos of nothing insert soteriology into the paragraph. And he certainly did not contradict everything they had already been taught about foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying.

I am convinced those receiving the epistles did not wrestle with interpretation as though it were always a massive puzzle to solve and argue about, the way modern man does.

Re, the word, "might": my bad. I guess I got in a hurry. I wasn't thinking only of 2 Peter 3:9 but of the several places where they use the same notion (that "all" means ALL) to show that God is not specific as to who "accepts him". In the same way as they misunderstand John 3:16 (since it says, "should not perish") to indicate that, "really, it is up in air just who that might be that chooses to believe", affirmed (to them) also by the subjunctive, "might be", in John 3:17.

Look at 2 Timothy 2:10. "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." Does that verse teach that the salvation of the elect is not sure? Of course not. Paul endures so that the elect will obtain.

They even go so far with the notion, that where in 2 Cor 15:21-22 there is no subjunctive and no implication of any unknown results, and that since obviously (even by their agreement) "ALL" are not made alive through Christ, it is plain that what is meant is a subjunctive notion, that all MIGHT be, but there is no way to know just who that will be.

2 Peter 3:9 is often assumed, and, I think, usually translated, with the word, "should", which is automatically taken by those bent on self-determinism to indicate the subjunctive (and thus, "who knows—just anybody at all, really"), when in the Greek there isn't even the subjunctive. The Greek denotes only purpose. One "translation" I saw even uses the notion, "...wants all people to have the opportunity to [repent]."

 

[Arial]

Also, along with what you've already pointed out about v9 above, I've also mentioned (to my Arminian friends) that v9 speaks of the Lord as longsuffering, which is a wondrous and wonderful thing to know in regard to the elect*, but that it makes no sense in the case of the reprobate (because why would God "patiently wait" for someone to come to saving faith in His Son who He ALREADY knows never will ).

Very good point!

I like too the "long suffering is a wonderful thing to know in regard to the elect". It is true for all of us, but given some of the false teaching that was plaguing that church(s) and Peter's closing remarks:
14Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Peter was encouraging them personally and directly to not follow in the footsteps of the reprobate false prophets of chapter 2.

The longsuffering and patience of God towards those who are waiting on the consummation is as he sanctifies us more and more, just as much as it is Christ's delay until his last sheep is brought into the fold. For Christ.

It dawns on me more and more that the fact that it is for Christ is our assurance of preservation and perseverance. "I will lose none the Father has given me."

*Arminianism teaches election, as I'm sure you know, but their version sees God predestining and electing His saints on the basis of (what they understand to be) His "foreknowledge", on our choice of Him first, IOW. Perhaps the Semi-Pelagian believes something else than the Arminian does about that )

Yes, I am aware of that. And once again it makes no difference to them if the Greek text analysis makes it clear that the foreknowledge of God in the golden chain is "knew them before" (not what they would do) and if it doesn't then the predestined and called make no sense. And neither does the "these he" in the golden chain.

 

[makesends]

Papa Smurf said:
Also, along with what you've already pointed out about v9 above, I've also mentioned (to my Arminian friends) that v9 speaks of the Lord as longsuffering, which is a wondrous and wonderful thing to know in regard to the elect*, but that it makes no sense in the case of the reprobate (because why would God "patiently wait" for someone to come to saving faith in His Son who He ALREADY knows never will ).

Very good point!

I like too the "long suffering is a wonderful thing to know in regard to the elect". It is true for all of us, but given some of the false teaching that was plaguing that church(s) and Peter's closing remarks:
14Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Peter was encouraging them personally and directly to not follow in the footsteps of the reprobate false prophets of chapter 2.

The longsuffering and patience of God towards those who are waiting on the consummation is as he sanctifies us more and more, just as much as it is Christ's delay until his last sheep is brought into the fold. For Christ.

It dawns on me more and more that the fact that it is for Christ is our assurance of preservation and perseverance. "I will lose none the Father has given me."

Yes, I am aware of that. And once again it makes no difference to them if the Greek text analysis makes it clear that the foreknowledge of God in the golden chain is "knew them before" (not what they would do) and if it doesn't then the predestined and called make no sense. And neither does the "these he" in the golden chain.

Over and over, lately, the thought comes to me how much more simple life is, and how much better, and much easier the understanding of Scripture, when GOD is taken as the beginning and end, the center and purpose of existence, and all else being a result of his acts, for his own sake.

 

[Arial]

In the same way as they misunderstand John 3:16 (since it says, "should not perish") to indicate that, "really, it is up in air just who that might be that chooses to believe", affirmed (to them) also by the subjunctive, "might be", in John 3:17.

And even though John 3:16-17 doesn't say anything about anyone choosing anything.

Most translations translate 17 as shall not or will not perish.

They even go so far with the notion, that where in 2 Cor 15:21-22 there is no subjunctive and no implication of any unknown results, and that since obviously (even by their agreement) "ALL" are not made alive through Christ, it is plain that what is meant is a subjunctive notion, that all MIGHT be, but there is no way to know just who that will be.

Yup. It is called blatant eisegesis. "This is what I believe so that must be what it says and means."

2 Peter 3:9 is often assumed, and, I think, usually translated, with the word, "should", which is automatically taken by those bent on self-determinism to indicate the subjunctive (and thus, "who knows—just anybody at all, really"), when in the Greek there isn't even the subjunctive. The Greek denotes only purpose. One "translation" I saw even uses the notion, "...wants all people to have the opportunity to [repent]."

That is one good reason for all Christians to pursue sound exegetical doctrine and gain ever increasing knowledge of GOD from this pursuit. Then we know when we come across something like that, that it is wrong, wrong, wrong. And to not read only select and isolated scriptures. That has produced more proof texting support for positions and false teaching that maybe anything else. There are a multitude of pastors who teach the word that way from the pulpit.

 

[makesends]

There are a multitude of pastors who teach the word that way from the pulpit.

In fact, even those who suppose themselves to be teaching through the text —i.e., not topical preaching, but expository. I've watched them go the whole way through Romans and suppose they have given it a thorough go.

 

[Carbon]

*Arminianism teaches election, as I'm sure you know, but their version sees God predestining and electing His saints on the basis of (what they understand to be) His "foreknowledge", on our choice of Him first, IOW. Does the Semi-Pelagian believe something else than the Arminian does about that .. as well, perhaps, the "free will" Protestant?)

Hey brother, this part caught my attention, and I must comment on it.

*Arminianism teaches election,

But they dont realize its "self-electing." Well, anyway, onward. . . .

A covenant is considered the means or instrument by which God accomplishes his saving purposes for those he has eternally chosen. God said, I will be your God, and you shall be my people.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1.

I wonder why I bold things sometimes; it all should be in bold.

The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in Him with all the elect as his seed.

There alone, even, are all the 5 points,

That blessed assurance and eternal security are right there.

This was all put in Christ's hands and could never be lost or fail.

It's utterly amazing, as if we need any more to wonder about, that all Jesus did was according to the Father's will.

John 4:32-34​

32 But He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about."
33 So the disciples were saying to one another, "No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?"
34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:38-40.

I have been asked by Arminians and others, before you had the T U L I P, how you could prove Calvinism? First, we had those points put together in The Synod of Dort, which was a European transnational Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618–1619, by the Dutch Reformed Church, to settle a divisive controversy caused by the rise of Arminianism.

All I can do is look at them and say, wow.

 

[Papa Smurf]

One "translation" I saw even uses the notion, "...wants all people to have the opportunity to [repent]."

WOW

For those (Arminians and others too) who are willing to look closely at the verses/passages that clearly teach Reformed theology/soteriology, I've often heard something along these lines, "well, the Bible must mean something else, because it simply can't mean that", or worse, "I can't worship a God who teaches something like that" (or they simply turn to the old standard, "it only says that when it's taken out-of-context", but then they can't demonstrate how it was taken out-of-context, other than to say that it disagrees with their free-will presupposition, so it must be wrong ).

--Papa Smurf

 

[Papa Smurf]

But they dont realize its "self-electing."

Sadly, I think that they actually do, they just don't care, because the free will "Gospel" that they teach doesn't work any other way

I wonder why I bold things sometimes; it all should be in bold.

You do it for all of us who prefer summaries/who don't want to have to read entire sentences, or dare I say, paragraphs

Just kidd'n, I like bold type, and anything else that helps us come to a better understanding of what is actually being said in these threads (we can clearly use all the help that we can get sometimes, as I'm sure that you'd agree). Actually, we do pretty well here, but there are some threads that I've been a part of elsewhere over the years that I still have barely a clue about (about what the poster actually meant, that is, in part, or in whole ).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf