• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What if God, willing to. . . .

Why, in your view, can the elect not perish?
The "P" in TULIP. God will accomplish the task His grace was purposed to accomplish, and that means none He gives His Son will ever be lost. They will not lose their salvation. Once a person is saved, they will always be saved, and nothing can wrest the saved from the almighty rasp of the almighty God. The elect cannot perish.

It is, therefore, nonsensical to interpret 2 Peter 3:9's "perish" to apply to the elect. The elect cannot perish. It's not only a logically self-contradictory premise; the premise of any elect soteriologically perishing also violates core doctrine of Calvinism/monergism.

T: Sinful man is incapable of coming to God for salvation in his/her own facutlies.
U: God did not base His selection/election of who He would save on any condition, quality or faculty of the one being saved.
L: Atonement is sufficient for any and all to be saved but it is applicable and efficient only one those God actually saves.
I: God's graces accomplishes what He purposes it to accomplish.
P: Those God saves will be saved. They possess an assurance of salvation because their salvation is not up to them. As a consequence of God's might and God's work, they will be saved and will not lose their salvation.

That is what Calvinism teaches. This op's interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 runs smack into direct conflict with the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine and contradicts the reality the elect cannot soteriologically perish. It is an interpretation that has God not desiring a logical impossibility, a condition that violates the reality of what it means to be elect.

God does not desire He perish. That is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the eternal God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect to perish soteriologically. That too is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the elect cannot soteriologically perish.

The moment the op imposed soteriology on the verse he created an internal contradiction with his own belief system and created a logical self-contradiction. And I do not care how many letters a theologian has after he is or her name or how many books s/he's written; if s/he interpreted that verse the same we then s/he too made the exact same mistake. Calvin, the guy whose name is born by our mutual-shared soteriology did not do that. Post 84 proves it.



Now it's your turn: Why, in your view, can the elect not perish?



.
 
The "P" in TULIP. God will accomplish the task His grace was purposed to accomplish, and that means none He gives His Son will ever be lost. They will not lose their salvation. Once a person is saved, they will always be saved, and nothing can wrest the saved from the almighty rasp of the almighty God. The elect cannot perish.

It is, therefore, nonsensical to interpret 2 Peter 3:9's "perish" to apply to the elect. The elect cannot perish. It's not only a logically self-contradictory premise; the premise of any elect soteriologically perishing also violates core doctrine of Calvinism/monergism.

T: Sinful man is incapable of coming to God for salvation in his/her own facutlies.
U: God did not base His selection/election of who He would save on any condition, quality or faculty of the one being saved.
L: Atonement is sufficient for any and all to be saved but it is applicable and efficient only one those God actually saves.
I: God's graces accomplishes what He purposes it to accomplish.
P: Those God saves will be saved. They possess an assurance of salvation because their salvation is not up to them. As a consequence of God's might and God's work, they will be saved and will not lose their salvation.

That is what Calvinism teaches. This op's interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 runs smack into direct conflict with the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine and contradicts the reality the elect cannot soteriologically perish. It is an interpretation that has God not desiring a logical impossibility, a condition that violates the reality of what it means to be elect.

God does not desire He perish. That is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the eternal God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect to perish soteriologically. That too is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the elect cannot soteriologically perish.

The moment the op imposed soteriology on the verse he created an internal contradiction with his own belief system and created a logical self-contradiction. And I do not care how many letters a theologian has after he is or her name or how many books s/he's written; if s/he interpreted that verse the same we then s/he too made the exact same mistake. Calvin, the guy whose name is born by our mutual-shared soteriology did not do that. Post 84 proves it.



Now it's your turn: Why, in your view, can the elect not perish?



.
An excellent post with clarity. Simple and straight forward. Nice job.
 
The elect are the only ones who do not perish,
Exactly.
...therefore God's desire is that the elect do not perish
No. That is backwards, the cart before the horse. The reason the elect do not perish is because God does not desire they do so. His desire is not predicated on the elect. The elect are predicated on His desire. The interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 has God not desiring something He's already decided and determined will not happen. The elect cannot perish.

God does not desire He perish. That is an irrational statement because, by definition, God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect to perish (soteriologically). That too is an irrational statement because, by definition. the elect cannot soteriologically perish.

God desires the elect to live and as a consequence of that desire they do live and will live and cannot do or be otherwise. They cannot not live! The elect cannot perish. Why then would God not desire them to perish? I do not know but that is the interpretation this op has implicitly assigned to God. and every single post in this thread that talked about the elect avoided the matter of God not desiring something that cannot happen.
I went back and read post 84 to see what the heck you keep yammering about.
{edit}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An excellent post with clarity. Simple and straight forward. Nice job.
Thanks. Now please explain how God can not desire something logically impossible.

I use the words "not desire" to emphasize the verse in question, to highlight the desire of God relevant to the condition of the elect accordingly to HIS providence. Whether God desires or does not desire the elect's perishing is irrational because to do either would mean He has a desire for or against an impossibility, and an impossibility He already knowns is an impossibility because He made it impossible.

God does not desire He would perish. That is an irrational statement because by definition God cannot perish. He cannot desire or not desire His own perishing.

God does not desire the elect to perish. That too is an irrational statement because by definition the elct cannot perish. They cannot perish because that is the way God made them.
An excellent post with clarity. Simple and straight forward. Nice job.
Great. We have agreement! Now apply that agreement to the premise of God not desiring something He already knows is impossible. The elect cannot perish!


.
 
No. That is backwards, the cart before the horse. The reason the elect do not perish is because God does not desire they do so.
Carts and horses are not the issue. Yikes!
⛏️⛏️⛏️
Is it God's desire that the elect do not perish? Yes or no?
His desire is not predicated on the elect. The elect are predicated on His desire. The interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 has God not desiring something He's already decided and determined will not happen. The elect cannot perish.
I know that. How many times do I have to say it before you hear?




 
Last edited:
But that you can't answer the atheist is.
The atheist is what? That sentence doesn't seem cogent to me.
Whether the question is asked by atheists is of no consequence. But that you can't answer the atheist is. And there is a perfectly good answer.
No doubt!
 
No, of course not. I am saying that you are making the mistake.

And in the same sentence(s) the principle of righteousness, justification and life is universal. There is no distinction established between those affected by Adam's disobedience and those affect by Jesus' obedience. They are by any rational exegesis and interpretation the same.
I see you left out the last part of what I said.
 
Thanks. Now please explain how God can not desire something logically impossible.

I use the words "not desire" to emphasize the verse in question, to highlight the desire of God relevant to the condition of the elect accordingly to HIS providence. Whether God desires or does not desire the elect's perishing is irrational because to do either would mean He has a desire for or against an impossibility, and an impossibility He already knowns is an impossibility because He made it impossible.

God does not desire He would perish. That is an irrational statement because by definition God cannot perish. He cannot desire or not desire His own perishing.

God does not desire the elect to perish. That too is an irrational statement because by definition the elct cannot perish. They cannot perish because that is the way God made them.

Great. We have agreement! Now apply that agreement to the premise of God not desiring something He already knows is impossible. The elect cannot perish!


.
The conversation doesn’t need my help. Its involved enough already.
 
The "P" in TULIP. God will accomplish the task His grace was purposed to accomplish, and that means none He gives His Son will ever be lost. They will not lose their salvation. Once a person is saved, they will always be saved, and nothing can wrest the saved from the almighty rasp of the almighty God. The elect cannot perish.

It is, therefore, nonsensical to interpret 2 Peter 3:9's "perish" to apply to the elect. The elect cannot perish. It's not only a logically self-contradictory premise; the premise of any elect soteriologically perishing also violates core doctrine of Calvinism/monergism.

T: Sinful man is incapable of coming to God for salvation in his/her own facutlies.
U: God did not base His selection/election of who He would save on any condition, quality or faculty of the one being saved.
L: Atonement is sufficient for any and all to be saved but it is applicable and efficient only one those God actually saves.
I: God's graces accomplishes what He purposes it to accomplish.
P: Those God saves will be saved. They possess an assurance of salvation because their salvation is not up to them. As a consequence of God's might and God's work, they will be saved and will not lose their salvation.

That is what Calvinism teaches. This op's interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 runs smack into direct conflict with the Perseverance of the Saints doctrine and contradicts the reality the elect cannot soteriologically perish. It is an interpretation that has God not desiring a logical impossibility, a condition that violates the reality of what it means to be elect.

God does not desire He perish. That is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the eternal God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect to perish soteriologically. That too is a completely irrational statement because, by definition, the elect cannot soteriologically perish.

The moment the op imposed soteriology on the verse he created an internal contradiction with his own belief system and created a logical self-contradiction. And I do not care how many letters a theologian has after he is or her name or how many books s/he's written; if s/he interpreted that verse the same we then s/he too made the exact same mistake. Calvin, the guy whose name is born by our mutual-shared soteriology did not do that. Post 84 proves it.



Now it's your turn: Why, in your view, can the elect not perish?



.
The foundational reason for everything in creation is ... God's desire. Everything that exists, exists because God desires it to exist; everything that happens, happens because God desires it to happen. God's desire is the fountainhead from which, and in which, the whole of history flows.

The foundational reason why the elect do not perish, is because God does not desire them to perish.

2 Pet. 3:9 (VW) The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is longsuffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

This describes the foundational reason why none of the elect perish - because God has not desired/purposed it to be so.
 
Ro 5:12-14 also says
1) death is caused by sin (Ro 6:23),
2) where there is no law there is no sin (sin is not taken into account) (Ro 5:13)
3) there was no law between Adam and Moses (sin was not taken into account, not charged against them) (Ro 5:13),
4) yet they all died anyway (Ro 5:14),
5) so what sin caused their death, when they did not sin (i.e., sin was not taken into account?*
First physical death is not caused by sin. Adam and Eve didn't die physically because they sinned. They died spiritually when they disobeyed God. Physical death is an integral part of the physical universe. Nothing in the physical universe is or ever was immortal. Adam and Eve died eventually because the no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life which suppressed dying (Gen 3:22)

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The contrast here is spiritual death and spiritual life. Eternal life is not contrasted with physical death. Even those who have been given eternal life will die physically. Thus the wages of sin is spiritual death.

So now let's go back to chapter five.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--

Yes sin came into the world through Adam. He was the first person to sin. That was the first sin in the world. And the death he suffered because of his sin was spiritual death, not physical death. The death that spread to all men was also spiritual death because they sinned, not because of Adam. Adam started it, but every person after that picked up on it. God doesn't condemn anyone for another's sin (Ezek 18).

I think that there is gross misunderstanding about verses 13 and 14. Many have interpreted verse 14 as you apparently have. But that really doesn't make any sense. Because not only was there no (written) law between Adam and Moses, the written law of Moses was only for the Hebrew people. It did not apply to the whole rest of the world. Are you suggesting that the whole rest of the world will go to heaven because sin is not counted? The real question is for whom can it be said that there is no law. Paul has already said in chapter 2 that "all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law". That is because, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law" (Rom 2: 13-14).

So then, even those between Adam and Moses, and the whole rest of the world after Moses were not without law. Paul further said, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom 2:15).

Therefore getting back to the question of, "where is there no law". Given that there is essentially law everywhere in the world, whether it is Moses law or not. It is written on their hearts, it is a God-given feature of the consciences. There is within every group, tribe, country and nation a code by which they live. There is within every community a system they subscribe to that establishes right from wrong. That is their law, that is "the law". That is the law that Paul is speaking of in Romans 5. So then where is there no law. I believe there are two groups of persons in the world where there is no law. One is in those too young to be conscious of any law; and the other is in those who are too mentally deficient to be conscious of any law. It is only in those two such group of human beings that God does not hold them accountable for their actions. Thus even though God does not hold that group accountable, nevertheless they die physically. But they do not die spiritually.
The answer to #5 is the answer to your following questions:

See Ro 5:18. . ."through one trespass (by Adam) was condemnation for all men."

*the trespass of Adam which was imputed to all men (born of Adam). . .("all sinned," Ro 5:12, by imputation of Adam's sin),
just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all men (born of Christ) (Ro 5:18). . .(all righteous/justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness).
The basis for your inserting the "born of Adam" into the first part of verse 18 and inserting "born of Christ" into the second part of verse 18 is only your own personal bias. You want the passage to establish the concept or the doctrine of Original Sin. Therefore, you alter what it actually says in order to make that happen. It is the perfect example of eisegesis.

The straightforward reading of both verse 18 and 19 will assign the imputation of Adam's disobedience and the imputation of Christ's obedience to the same "all men" and that to the unborn. The net effect of that is the effect of the obedience of Jesus Christ is to negate the effect of the disobedience of Adam upon all men.
 
What about those born before the crucifixion and resurrection?
The redemption that comes from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross is retroactive back to the very beginning even to Adam.
 
They have no bearing on this conversation. Calvinism/monergism does not assume conditions that do not exist and if you think that is the case then you've not correctly understood Calvinism.

Calvinism does not teach God formed an already dead spirit in the unborn.
What do you think the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity is. It is that the spirit of man is dead at the outset.
Everything you've built on that premise is faulty because the foundation is incorrect.

  • That which God originally made was good. This is plainly stated in Genesis 1:31.
  • That means Adam and Eve were good people prior to Genesis 3:7.
  • Good people did something bad. That is the report of Genesis 3:7. They disobeyed God and disobeyed Him twice!
  • The effects of that disobedience were pervasive. According to Romans 5 Adam's disobedience brought sin into the world. In other words, the entire world was changed. What was previously good and sinless was suddenly not-good and sin-filled. Sin came upon all men, and through sin came death. Whether born sinful or not scripture explicitly states all would sin. What may or may not have been a possibility or a likely probability suddenly became an inevitability. That is not a Calvinist or non-Calvinist set of statements. It is straight out of scripture and Arms and Cals do not get to debate it and call themselves believers of God's word.
  • Although the text of Genesis 3 does not use the specific word "estranged," we see from the report of the text Adam became estranged from God, estranged from himself, estranged from Eve (others), and estranged from the creation of which only moments earlier he'd been the divinely mandated steward! No more.
  • The moment that change (sin entering the world) happened a set of entirely different rules set in. God made those rules and He told Adam and Eve about them beforehand and He told them the consequences. For whatever reason, they ignored the existing rules and brought upon them a new and different set of rules. One of those new rules was that all would sin. Transgressional death would come upon all future humans. That is not the way God made humans. It is the way Adam made his progeny. Stop blaming Calvinism for blaming God when neither is true.
  • Now I am not sure whether it was you with whom I earlier traded posts describing the physiological effects of sin and how natural biology supports the ancient doctrine of original sin, but if you'd like me to review that with you I can. The point is Adam and Eve experienced physiological changes at a cellular level that modern science can now prove get passed on to people's offspring. It is not what the ECFs had in mind when they formed that doctrine, but their ignorance does not change the fact one man's sin brought about changes on all his progeny.
All of that rests upon the false belief that the spirit formed in the unborn is dead in Adam's trespass.
The persons God originally formed were good and sinless. No one since then has been that way.
Everyone since has been that way. Adam who was good and sinless sinned. Everyone since has been good and sinless and sinned.
One more point. You chose to specify the unborn. 99.9% of scripture is about the born, not the unborn. What you've done is called an appeal to extremes. You've chosen a statistical and normatively outlying example and if you did it just to find a flaw in someone else's soteriology that's a fallacious argument.
By that argument the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity appeal to the extremes.
Here's what Calvinism teaches:

  • God made humans good and sinless.
Absolute not. Calvinism teaches that God has imputed the sin of Adam into all humans. That is false. Moreover, Calvinism teaches that no one can even intellectually hear and understand God until God first lets that happen.
  • God also made humans corruptible,
Obviously God made Adam corruptible
There are no God-made dead spirits in the unborn. Not in Calvinism. It was by one man's disobedience that death came to all men and all would sin. Stop blaming Calvinism for something it does not teach. Start accepting God's word exactly as written and stop appealing to the extremes to find fault with what God's word explicitly teaches.
NO, NO, NO. It was by one man's disobedience that death entered the world. Death came to all men because all men sinned.
 
This is not clear to me. Would you elaborate?
The effect of both are upon the unborn. You readily accept the effect of Adam is upon the unborn. The net of effect of both verses 18 and 19 is that Jesus sacrifice negated the effects of Adam's sin on the unborn.
 
Not true. All men are not and will not be justified. Nonsense.
They were when they came into this world. It was only through their trespasses and sins that they BECAME dead. They became dead in their trespasses and sins; they did not become dead in Adam's trespasses and sins.
 
The foundational reason for everything in creation is ... God's desire. Everything that exists, exists because God desires it to exist; everything that happens, happens because God desires it to happen. God's desire is the fountainhead from which, and in which, the whole of history flows.

The foundational reason why the elect do not perish, is because God does not desire them to perish.

2 Pet. 3:9 (VW) The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is longsuffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

This describes the foundational reason why none of the elect perish - because God has not desired/purposed it to be so.
All of that has previously been addressed and it does not address the problem of God not desiring something that He made impossible.

The dissent I have received has argued God was/is waiting for all the elect to repent (and come to salvation) because He doesn't want them to perish.

That argument is irrational because God already knows the elect cannot perish and they will not do so because He made them that way. That argument has God not desiring something He knows is impossible. Follow the logic...

[indent[God does not desire He would perish.[/indent]

That is an irrational statement because God cannot perish! Likewise,

God does not desire the elect would perish.

That too is an irrational statement because God desired them not to perish and made it impossible to do so from eternity! What the dissent should have argued (if they were going to stick to the soteriological argument) is that God waited patiently for the elect to come to repentance (and salvation) because He'd made it impossible for them to perish...... but that would mean God need not desire anything regarding their perishing one way or another. There is no risk of the elect perishing.

From eternity, I, God, have desired the elect not perish and thereby made it impossible for the elect to perish. Therefore, as I wait for the elect to repent and come to salvation, I do not desire they perish. I do not desire something I made impossible to happen. I desire what I have already made inevitable.


That's the interpretation those dissenting from Post 84 put on the verse in question. His desire the elect would inherently and inescapably live is an already decided desire that was made an inevitability. To suggest the possibility they not perish because they hadn't repented or hadn't yet had time to repent is irrational. Their repentance is guaranteed. Their salvation is guaranteed. They're not perishing is guaranteed.

I'm waiting because I don't desire any perish.[/]


The elect cannot perish!


At least not soteriologically.
 
NO, NO, NO. It was by one man's disobedience that death entered the world. Death came to all men because all men sinned.
Yes, yes, yes.

Adam and Eve were already mortal. Physical death is not what entered the world when Adam disobeyed God. We KNOW Adam and Eve were mortal because the threat of death would be meaningless to an immortal creature. The word "immortal" means unable to die or not subject to death. Immortal creatures can hear, "Do not eat or you will die," and respond, "Meh, I'm immortal; I cannot die." To believe Adam and Eve were made inherently immortal is to make meaningless God's command and to make God a liar. We KNOW they were mortal because an immortal creature does not need a tree of life. An immortal person could eat from the tree of life and their life would not be extended one second because they are already immortal!!! We know they were made immortal because the author of Hebrews explicitly stated it was apportioned for man to die once (not multiple times = physically dead, dead in sin, dead in Christ, second death, etc.) and then face judgment. We KNOW they were mortal because 1 Corinthians 15 states we are sown mortal and corruptible, not immortal and incorruptible (or immortal and already-corrupted). We KNOW death existed in Eden prior to Genesis 3:7 because God made all the plants and animals to reproduce and for an apple tree or a cucumber to reproduce it must produce seeds that die in the ground and become a new plant that produces more seeds and more plants. Death is inherent in reproduction, but it is not the death of sin. As I mentioned in a previous post..... if Adam was made inherently mortal then the laws of physics would be different. If he were immortal then he could jump or fall off a mile-high cliff and survive the sudden impact at the end of the fall. Nothing could kill him.

Humans were never immortal.

The death to which Paul is referring in Romans 12 is the death of sin. Some people call it "spiritual death," but that phrase is nowhere found in scripture. What scripture calls it is "dead in sin," or "dead in transgression." That is why I used the phrase "transgressional death." It was transgressional death that came to all men, not physical death. Physically, all humans were going to die anyway.

  • If a good and sinless person dies physically then s/he physically dies good and sinless can eat of the tree of life and be raised immortal.
  • If a person sins then s/he has instantly become dead in sin and if that person physically dies dead in sin, then they will die a third death in the fiery lake. That person has died physically dead in sin. They have not physically died good and sinless.
  • If a person sins then s/he instantly becomes dead in sin but if they subsequently believe in Jesus they are made alive again and dead to sin. They are changed. They are changed from dead in sin to dead to sin. They are changed from dead in sin, to dead in Christ and being dead in Christ is what makes one physically immortal, not being made human. Humans are NOT made physically immortal. The only way to be physically immortal is to eat from the tree of life. When that formerly good and sinless person who has become not-good and sinful dies in Christ he will be resurrected and in his resurrect be transformed from mortal and corruptible to immortal and incorruptible. That was the plan from the beginning: it was apportioned for man to die once and then face judgment. If a person has sown to the flesh, they then reap eternal life, but f they have sown to the Spirit then they reap eternal life. No one was born with eternal life.

And I have proven the unborn are indeed and inescapably born dead in sin. Would you like me to repeat that information? If I were to provide convincing information, would you let go of the notion the people are pure and good and sinless before they are born?
NO, NO, NO. It was by one man's disobedience that death entered the world. Death came to all men because all men sinned.
Transgressional death, not physical death, entered the world when Adam disobeyed God. That is a form of death that had not previously existed in the world beforehand.

Now look at "all men sinned." Is Paul making a statement only about the past, only about those men who lived prior to Romans 12:5? Or is Paul making a statement that is true of all people, male and female, men and women, young and old, in every generation? We KNOW from Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory. That is just as true today as it was when Paul wrote the verse. All have sinned. It isn't just the people that lived before Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, that verse also applies to all the humans born between that time and this one, and it is also true of all the people on earth who will live after you and I have physically died. We also know the wages of sin is death. Transgressional death comes to all who have sinned.

Death came to all men because all sinned.

Death has [already] come to all men because all men [will sin]. There is only one man who has ever lived a completely sinless life and there is only one man who will ever live a completely life and that man is Jesus, the Son of God. There won't be any other sinless people. He is it; the only one. Sin and sinful death are just as inevitable as physical death. It is just as inevitable of the unborn as it is of the born.

That is not the way God originally made humans.
 
All of that has previously been addressed and it does not address the problem of God not desiring something that He made impossible.

The dissent I have received has argued God was/is waiting for all the elect to repent (and come to salvation) because He doesn't want them to perish.

That argument is irrational because God already knows the elect cannot perish and they will not do so because He made them that way. That argument has God not desiring something He knows is impossible. Follow the logic...

[indent[God does not desire He would perish.[/indent]

That is an irrational statement because God cannot perish! Likewise,

God does not desire the elect would perish.

That too is an irrational statement because God desired them not to perish and made it impossible to do so from eternity! What the dissent should have argued (if they were going to stick to the soteriological argument) is that God waited patiently for the elect to come to repentance (and salvation) because He'd made it impossible for them to perish...... but that would mean God need not desire anything regarding their perishing one way or another. There is no risk of the elect perishing.

From eternity, I, God, have desired the elect not perish and thereby made it impossible for the elect to perish. Therefore, as I wait for the elect to repent and come to salvation, I do not desire they perish. I do not desire something I made impossible to happen. I desire what I have already made inevitable.


That's the interpretation those dissenting from Post 84 put on the verse in question. His desire the elect would inherently and inescapably live is an already decided desire that was made an inevitability. To suggest the possibility they not perish because they hadn't repented or hadn't yet had time to repent is irrational. Their repentance is guaranteed. Their salvation is guaranteed. They're not perishing is guaranteed.

I'm waiting because I don't desire any perish.[/]


The elect cannot perish!


At least not soteriologically.
At first you said that God cannot desire to keep from happening what he has already made impossible (in spite of the fact that the impossibility is because of his desire); but, now you are saying that it was God's desire for the elect not to perish that made it impossible, which is exactly what I've been saying all along! Are you trying to gaslight us?

God's desire does not change. His desire, from before the foundation of the world, that his elect would not perish is still his desire today; and it is that eternal desire that leads to God suffering long with his elect, while we are in a state of rebellion and unbelief, until we come to repentance.

God uses means to keep his elect from perishing and one of those means is his long-suffering with the, as yet unsaved, elect. The reason why God suffers long with us, is his eternal desire that none of us would perish.

If God were fickle (like the mythical Greek gods), then we would have no such guarantee that the elect would all be saved; but, it is the immutability of his desire that the elect will not perish that guarantees that we will never perish.

Our repentance is likewise guaranteed, because God suffers long with us, in our state of unbelief, until his chosen time to grant us repentance unto life; and God suffers long with us, because of his eternal desire that we would not perish.

I'm finding hard to see why you are not grasping this. Is it because you think that the means God has chosen to use (e.g. his long-suffering) are unnecessary?
 
Back
Top