Got it (and it HAS been addressed). Let's try a more Socratic approach [I think that is the term for when you ask questions to teach a point].
Start with the verse:
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.”
If "The Lord" was a little LESS "longsuffering" and returned in 1500 (instead of a Protestant reformation, there was 1000 years of "hell on earth"), would YOU and I be saved or perish without the Holy Spirit or Church in the world?
Be saved.
The elect cannot perish soteriologically!
.
If "The Lord" was a little LESS "longsuffering" and returned after we were born but before we repented, would YOU and I be saved or perish?
Saved.
The elect cannot perish soteriologically!
.
Since the Lord did not return yet, has His "longsuffering to us-ward" (by not yet returning and ending sin) resulted in YOU and I coming to repentance?
Well, you and I seem to disagree on whether the Lord has returned relevant to 2 Peter 3 because the Lord did return, and we did come to repentance. This has NOTHINIG to do with whether we could possibly perish soteriologically. Assuming 2 Peter 3's "coming" is the final coming of Jesus in the far distant future..... it was Nog God's longsuffering that caused our repentance. There's no causal relationship between His longsuffering and our salvific repentance and it would not have mattered how little or how long God longsuffered because...
the elect cannot perish soteriologically!
.
Now that I have a more precise understanding of your question, I have attempted a more focused response.
No, you've asked a bunch of non sequiturs (although possibly not realizing that happened).
You DID give the appearance of arguing for something else (and I was not alone in misinterpreting your question).
No, what I posted was read by some to say something it never actually stated. That is all on the one making the assumptions, not me.
And I am happy to exploit others' prejudices. It would be best if those biases were ditched, and falsehoods not assumed and attributed to others. If there is ever a case in which something I post is not clear, or has not been adequately understood, it is always best to simply ask for clarity. That is what I do with all of you, and it works well (although occasionally asking someone to explain themselves triggers their defenses) one way or another.
So, to reiterate and regather the exchange..... The elect are going to repent. It's an already done deal and
everyone on the monergist side of soteriology agrees (including me). Some may not have repented by the time Peter wrote his second epistle, but their repentance was inevitable. That is not the problem with rendering the verse to be solely about the elect (and I never said it was). The problem is the perishing. The elect will repent, and they will never (soteriologically) perish. This leaves only two options: either the desire none would perish is applicable to
all people (which is problematic because the letter was written to the saints, the elect, those already saved and we agree it has to do with God "waiting" until the temporal passage of time brings in the repenting elect), or the perishing is not soteriological, but eschatological. Calvin did not think the verse was limited to the elect, and Sproul agrees (or rather, I agree with him
) the verse is eschatological, not specifically soteriological. The elect never perish soteriologically, but they do perish eschatologically.
Hebrews 9:27
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment...
The elect die physically. They do not die soteriologically. Thousands of elect have died over recent years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, etc. Elect dying in war is not particularly new or noteworthy. The day of the Lord was coming, and God wanted none of the elect to die in the war, so they were exhorted to obedience. It's very similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 24 when exhorted the apostles to flee to the mountains.
Matthew 24:15-16
"Therefore, when you see the abomination of destruction which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."
And that is exactly what the Christians did. They'd sold their property because they knew it was going to soon be worthless. God dispersed them after Pentecost but the Christians remaining in Jerusalem when Rome laid siege fled to the mountains and hid in the caves there. As far as the historical record we have goes, not a single Christian life was lost. They were not lost......
due to obedience.
And it does not matter that I take a partial-preterist approach to these passages because the principles ensconced therein are universal. The elect do not perish eschatologically. They do perish eschatologically.
. The same truths apply in every generation, age, and millennium. It's only the Israel that is Israel living today that will get saved, fullness of Gentiles or not. The Israel that is not Israel won't be saved. Ever.
That question has already been answered and addressed.
