Reconciling Two?

[prism]

What is God's purpose creating creation?
What is it that causes a person's destruction?

To the 1st…don’t know (but I’m told it’s for His own glory).
2 . Predestination. (I see that in Scripture)

 

[Arial]

Which answers? Most of the answers have assumed I don’t understand that 2Pet 3:9 is referring to the elect instead of comparing it with Mt 11:25.

Explaining 2 Peter 3:9 does compare it with Matt 11:25. Putting the two beside each other presents a contradiction as you said. Explaining 2 Peter removes the contradiction. There is none.

 

[Josheb]

To the 1st…don’t know (but I’m told it’s for His own glory).

Okay. Let's work with what you're "told."

1. Does it make sense that God's purpose creating creation is self-glorification?
2. What possible glorification might occur if and when people perish in sin?
3. What possible glorification might possibly occur saves some individual(s)?

.

2 . Predestination. (I see that in Scripture)

Incorrect. Sin causes a person's destruction, not God. What God destroys has already been destroyed by sin. He destroys the destroyed, not the built, edified, restored, preserved, (pick any antonym of "destroy" you like). I suspect your understanding of predestination warrants clarification if not correction.



Got another question for you, unrelated to the above but related to the op. Do you read Matthew 11:25 to mean that which was hidden had never previously been revealed and that it was always and everywhere hidden, or do you read that verse to say there are things that had previously been revealed but were subsequently hidden from some, and later disclosed?




So.....

You do not know what God's purpose is creating creation and you think predestination, not sin, is what causes a person's destruction even though God never destroys that which is not sinful, and you're having difficulty reconciling Matthew 11:25 and 2 Peter 3:9 as a consequence. Is that a fair summary of what is evidenced in the posts?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Which answers? Most of the answers have assumed I don’t understand that 2 Peter 3:9 is referring to the elect, instead of comparing it with Matthew 11:25.

Be that as it may, this still does not specify exactly how the answers thus far have failed to answer your question.

For example, using 1 Timothy 2:4 as a stepping off point (for reasons I provided), I showed that Paul defined what he meant by "all people" and it doesn't mean "without exception." IF IT MEANT THE LATTER, then you would have a point about an incongruency with Matthew 11:25. But it doesn't, which means there is no tension, much less a contradiction.

Same thing goes with 2 Peter 3:9. As myself and others have shown, he is referring to a particular category of people, the elect (or your staff members in my illustration), not all "without exception." IF IT MEANT THE LATTER, then you would have a point about an incongruency with Matthew 11:25. But it doesn't, which means there is no tension, much less a contradiction.

Hence, my confusion about the persistence of your question. It sounds answered. How is it not? Please be specific.

 

[prism]

Incorrect. Sin causes a person's destruction, not God. What God destroys has already been destroyed by sin. He destroys the destroyed, not the built, edified, restore preserved, (pick any antonym of "destroy" you like). I suspect your understanding of predestination warrants clarification if not correction.

another 'gotcha' question, unless one holds to a supralapsarian view instead of an infra, which both by the way are man-made constructs, not rooted in scripture.

 

[prism]

Hence, my confusion about the persistence of your question. It sounds answered. How is it not? Please be specific.

Maybe it's my confusion. I would like to see a debate on this topic, between an Arminian and a Calvinist, and I don't mean a James White vs Dave Hunt debate.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Maybe it's my confusion. I would like to see a debate on this topic, between an Arminian and a Calvinist, and I don't mean a James White vs Dave Hunt debate.

Find me an Arminian. I will happily debate him. Is that you? (The term "Berean" does not convey any particular theology.) Find me an Arminian and we can set up the terms of the debate.

 

[Arial]

Maybe it's my confusion. I would like to see a debate on this topic, between an Arminian and a Calvinist, and I don't mean a James White vs Dave Hunt debate.

Are you confused about it or not? Or is the confusion that you meant for Arminianists to present their explanation of the apparent contradiction, but did not say that? Or that you were opening up a debate between C and A each giving their interpretations and that didn't happen. No A'ists joined in the debate so we only got one side. There aren't that many active at the moment and those who are choose to not debate that topic for the simple reason that it can end circular and cause hard feelings between persons who actually have a lot of respect for each other.

In any case, those who responded simply answered the second scripture by exegesis of the first, which is what has to be done because the "confusing" words were all in the first. (2 Peter)

You do say in the OP that you have trouble with those two scriptures, and then you ask how others would reconcile them. Which implies reconciling the two scriptures is what you have trouble with.

If you are asking what each one means apart from each other, then you are waiting for an explanation of the Matt scripture. If that is what you are waiting for, rather than a reconciling of the two with each other, then say so. I am sure we will all oblige with our input. It is a good OP topic and discussion. But since you have expressed dissatisfaction with what has been given, evidently your intent needs to be clarified.

Thanks.

 

[makesends]

Are you confused about it or not? Or is the confusion that you meant for Arminianists to present their explanation of the apparent contradiction, but did not say that? Or that you were opening up a debate between C and A each giving their interpretations and that didn't happen. No A'ists joined in the debate so we only got one side. There aren't that many active at the moment and those who are choose to not debate that topic for the simple reason that it can end circular and cause hard feelings between persons who actually have a lot of respect for each other.

In any case, those who responded simply answered the second scripture by exegesis of the first, which is what has to be done because the "confusing" words were all in the first. (2 Peter)

You do say in the OP that you have trouble with those two scriptures, and then you ask how others would reconcile them. Which implies reconciling the two scriptures is what you have trouble with.

If you are asking what each one means apart from each other, then you are waiting for an explanation of the Matt scripture. If that is what you are waiting for, rather than a reconciling of the two with each other, then say so. I am sure we will all oblige with our input. It is a good OP topic and discussion. But since you have expressed dissatisfaction with what has been given, evidently your intent needs to be clarified.

Thanks.

Lol, it might be worth holding the debate with two or three of us playing devil's advocate.

 

[Josheb]

another 'gotcha' question, unless one holds to a supralapsarian view instead of an infra, which both by the way are man-made constructs, not rooted in scripture.

Please do not impose doctrine on my posts. I spoke from scripture, not extra-biblical doctrine. I can support and prove everything I post with scripture, well-reasoned scripture, and scripture alone. I will not be diverted, baited, or trolled with red herrings or trolling appeals to some doctrine or another, especially if it is being insinuated my posts are not as I have just described.

• The fact of scripture is that God destroys the already destroyed and never destroys that which is not destroy and that which has been restored.
• The fact of scripture is that sin destroys a person, not God.

And when you ignore those facts, then you are wrong to do so. When you misrepresent those facts (as is the case when reporting predestination destroys people) then, again, it is you who are wrong. When you impose on my posts (or anyone else's) things I have never mentioned (especially when they do not reconcile with my beliefs) then you're wrong (as well as disingenuous). And the conversation ceases to exist when you don't show parity and answer questions when asked.

1. Does it make sense that God's purpose creating creation is self-glorification?
2. What possible glorification might occur if and when people perish in sin?
3. What possible glorification might possibly occur saves some individual(s)?

I suspect many here would like to read your unqualified answers to those questions. You can discuss and debate predestination and supralapsarianism with those posters who bring those matters to bear on the op. Please take what I have posted exactly as written. I am willing and able to clarify anything I post. All you have to do is ask. Otherwise, keep the dross to yourself and be sincere when you trade posts with me. I have done you the courtesy of working with you based on what I have read.

• You're not sure what God's purpose is, but you've heard it is X. Great. I will work with that.
• You thought predestination causes a person's destruction. That's not so great. Scripture makes it plain that sin, and our choices and actions feeding the sinful flesh are what causes the sinner's destruction (Gal. 6:8 would be one place where that is clearly stated). I, therefore, hope you have amended Post 21 in your mind and adjusted your thinking on this op accordingly.
• Thinking predestination causes destruction is not going to reconcile Matthew 11:25 and 2 Peter 3:9. Neither will a lack of knowledge pertaining to God's purpose but at least His glorification is something with which we can work and form a conversation.
• Understanding God can have many desires at the same time is germane, and significant.
• Context is also critical, especially when trying to reconcile two individual verses that have been removed from their surrounding text and their inherent contexts, and all the more so when the two verses come from different books, different genres, and different authors.
• Correcting errant, misguided, and simply mistaken beliefs is, likewise, critical to the ability to reconcile the two verses. Thinking a father never withholds information, or that his doing so is a bad thing is a mistake. So too is thinking predestination causes destruction.

So.....

1. Does it make sense that God's purpose creating creation is self-glorification?
2. What possible glorification might occur if and when people perish in sin?
3. What possible glorification might possibly occur saves some individual(s)?

.


.

 

[Arial]

Lol, it might be worth holding the debate with two or three of us playing devil's advocate.

A good debater is supposed to be able to do that, but I don't think I could. I would disgust myself! I wouldn't believe a thing I said and would know where all the holes were.

 

[makesends]

A good debater is supposed to be able to do that, but I don't think I could. I would disgust myself! I wouldn't believe a thing I said and would know where all the holes were.

Yep. I try to do it regularly within my own mind (to some point—usually over some miniscule detail), which is where I sometimes come up with arguments I haven't even heard from them. This is also partly why I tell them I could argue their points better than whoever I'm talking to at the time. You've probably also heard me say, that if they were so inclined, they would be able to see past their arguments, and maybe even argue my points better than I can.

 

[prism]

Find me an Arminian. I will happily debate him.

No, as an infant Christian going to an Arminian Baptist Church I came across these passage...

Ephesians 1:4-5,11,13 NASB95
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love [5] He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [11] also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, [13] In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

...and have had questions (and have been jumped on) about this sort of thing ever since.

 

[prism]

A good debater is supposed to be able to do that, but I don't think I could. I would disgust myself! I wouldn't believe a thing I said and would know where all the holes were.

Ditto, except I would make holes that weren't there.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

No, as an infant Christian going to an Arminian Baptist church, I came across these passage ... [insert Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, 13] ... and have had questions (and have been jumped on) about this sort of thing ever since.

Okay, you're opening post invited people to explain how they reconcile passages like 2 Peter 3:9 and Matthew 11:25. Again, it seems clear to me that this has been answered—basically, that the context of "all" doesn't result in any tension with what is said in Matthew 11:25. There is a conflict ONLY IF it means all people "without exception," and I don't see that it does. I have asked you to specify exactly how these responses HAVEN'T demonstrated such a reconciliation, but you have not done so. (And I don't understand how you can perceive this as being jumped on. But I am on the autism spectrum, so that is to be expected.)

I would be happy to explore any passages about which you are curious or perplexed, but you need to explain how my response ISN'T answering your question, so that I can try a different tack.

 

[Eleanor]

And you’re assuming that’s what I assume, well I don’t!

Perhaps you should state what your issue is to avoid confusion.

 

[Eleanor]

Please, no more 2Peter 3:9 without dealing with Matthew 11:25. The purpose of this thread is to deal with those two verses.

See post #9.

 

[Eleanor]

No, as an infant Christian going to an Arminian Baptist Church I came across these passage...
Ephesians 1:4-5,11,13 NASB95
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love [5] He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [11] also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, [13] In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
...and have had questions (and have been jumped on) about this sort of thing ever since.

Scripture is to be taken at its word which, understood in the light of all Scripture, does not support Arminianism.

 

[prism]

Perhaps you should state what your issue is to avoid confusion.

Only if you state you’ll stop assuming.

 

[prism]

Scripture is to be taken at its word which, understood in the light of all Scripture, does not support Arminianism.

I agree and I’ll leave it at that.