What if God, willing to. . . .

[Alive]

Read through the thread and do not ask me questions I have already answered (especially not one's I have answered multiple times). Don't come late to the party and act like the conversation started because you arrived. Read the op. Then read Post 84. Post 84 is where my views were first posted and where the dissent with my views began. Read through the thread so you know what has and has not been posted and don't ask me questions I have already answered. If you do that the reason why I asked the question asked might be understood.

Knock it off, Josh. Enuff of telling members what to do.

 

[Josheb]

Knock it off, Josh. Enuff of telling members what to do.

Post amended accordingly.

 

[Ritajanice]

Is that placation, or am I to understand Post 358 as an acknowledgment the answer to the question asked is genuinely not known and understood?

Good. Do that. It makes no sense to me, either, so you let me know what you discover. Until then, my answer to the question asked has already been posted multiple times. God neither desires nor does not desire He perish because to do so would be nonsensical. He cannot perish. Since He cannot perish and already knows He cannot perish, why would He desire, or not desire, He would perish?

Yep. None of that is or has ever been in dispute and if you post already covered content a lot I'll stop trading posts with you, too. Further the conversation. Do not unnecessarily repeat already well-established content.

Non sequitur. That statement applies to everyone in the thread, whether their opinions be correct or not, that's already been covered and it's a red herring because we're not simply discussing opinions; we're endeavoring to establish God's truth, not our opinions.

Would you please read through the thread? Would you also please not ask me questions I have already answered (especially not one's I have answered multiple times)? If the op is read and then Post 84, then the nature of the disagreement will be better understood, as well as all the content already covered. Post 84 is where my views were first posted and where the dissent with my views began.

Well then figure it out because I have other really, really basic questions to ask and won't do anyone any good if they're not answered.

I think it best I stop engaging with you Josheb...thanks.

We’re all learning.....

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Arial]

Is that placation, or am I to understand Post 358 as an acknowledgment the answer to the question asked is genuinely not known and understood?

Good. Do that. It makes no sense to me, either, so you let me know what you discover. Until then, my answer to the question asked has already been posted multiple times. God neither desires nor does not desire He perish because to do so would be nonsensical. He cannot perish. Since He cannot perish and already knows He cannot perish, why would He desire, or not desire, He would perish?

Yep. None of that is or has ever been in dispute and if you post already covered content a lot I'll stop trading posts with you, too. Further the conversation. Do not unnecessarily repeat already well-established content.

Non sequitur. That statement applies to everyone in the thread, whether their opinions be correct or not, that's already been covered and it's a red herring because we're not simply discussing opinions; we're endeavoring to establish God's truth, not our opinions.

Would you please read through the thread? Would you also please not ask me questions I have already answered (especially not one's I have answered multiple times)? If the op is read and then Post 84, then the nature of the disagreement will be better understood, as well as all the content already covered. Post 84 is where my views were first posted and where the dissent with my views began.

Well then I invite you to figure it out because I have other really, really basic questions to ask and won't do anyone any good if they're not answered.

Show a bit of kindness and gentleness. I would think it would be a trained ability if not a natural one with counselors.

 

[Arial]

No. Reading the verse that way implies the elect can perish, and that would contradict the perseverance of the saints.

No it would not if both verses were expounded on----which they have been.

Since Calvin's view was brought into a conversation where it did not belong, and all dissent from that view regarded as applying the perishing to the elect, I will re-quote Calvin's position and go through it with what I consider inaccurate. BTW in the dissent is not applying the perishing to the elect. It is applying the "any" to the elect.

Calvin himself did not see 2 Peter 3:9 as limited to the elect. In his commentary on 2 Peter said this about the verse in question.....

9. But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

But as the verb chorosai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.

First of all Calvin is interpreting the "God is not willing" to refer to His various wills---the hidden will and the revealed will.This is what I heard when I first began studying Calvinism, mostly through contemporary writers. Until I grew in knowledge, and Scripture to be able to think through these things on my own. It is true that God has a hidden will and a revealed will but to apply that to the 2 Peter passage, I think is weak. I cop out, which is what it is usually referred to when it is used with a "free willer". It is very difficult to back up with Scripture. And you have not done so either. You merely point out that God has more than one desire and then bring Calvin into play. At least that is how you began.

Calvin: "that He defers His coming that He might invite all men to repentance." This is true in the sense of the mission given to believers of carrying the gospel to all nations. But it is not true in the sense of salvation. Only the elect will come to repentance and this God knows full well for all the elect He ordained to come to repentance before the foundation of the world.

Calvin: "But we hear the Lord in delaying shows a concern for our salvation , and that He defers the time because He has care for us." Who is the us Calvin is referring to here? Has he gone from all men to now us as the elect? It is unclear.

Calvin:"And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think the same as of every individual; for God by prolonging time for each, sustains him that he might repent, in like way he does not hasten to end the world, in order to give all time to repent." Unless my understanding of what he is saying is unclear, this completely undoes the teaching of election and predestination. Opponents could actually use that, and probably have, to say that Calvin didn't even believe in TULIP.

Calvin: "So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, as his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost, so that none may perish. But the order should be noticed that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation are pointed out." This does not address election or the elect at all, or even the passage in a direct way. If I did not know already Calvin's beliefs on the subject, he could just as easily be saying what the A'ist camp of today say the passage means. Which is that this is a passage that disproves election and predestination. It becomes their go to proof text. God wants everyone to be saved but they aren't because they didn't chose to to be saved. Of course, that "mystery" may be refuted in what Calvin may have said before or after the excerpt that was quoted for the forum.

Calvin: He does clear it up a bit in the next paragraph "For there God stretches forth his hand without a difference, but takes hold of only those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world."

All he says about the actual sentence is a question. "If God desires that none perish, why do so many perish?" is that it is a hidden purpose that is not brought out in the passage.

So it is Calvin who is not dealing with this perishing, not the rest of us as you have said. A much stronger defense to the argument that is brought against election through this passage is the one that has been given. God is not willing that any of the elect perish ----and millions had yet to be been born at the time of Peter's writing, and still more are yet to be born, none of the former had then come to repentance yet, and those who have yet to be born, have not yet come to repentance. Salvation (repentance) is by grace but through faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Because God is not willing for any of them to not come to repentance (perish), he delays His return until they have heard and believed and come to repentance.

 

[David1701]

What you think and what you posted are two different things and, yes, it is the issue. You will either stop posting personal comments about me or I will stop trading posts with you. Two other posters were asked to abide by the same exact metric and refused. They haven't gotten further replies from me. I expect you to expect the same standard from me.

That's nice but it does not answer the one question I asked you. Am I now going to ask the question again and again and again only to never receive an answer and conclude we're not actually have an equal exchange? I have been unable to persuade the dissent. That's not a secret. Rather than consider themselves missing something everyone has assumed I am the one missing what should be obvious. So I am trying to start over with some of the most basic agreements I can....

...and you've ignored the effort.

Just answer the question asked, please and let's try to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.


Can God perish?


.

As I pointed out, asking whether or not God can perish is irrelevant to our discussion, because it's a category error; however, I'll humour you: no, God cannot perish, because he is, in his nature, eternal and immutable; and he cannot will contrary to his nature.

 

[Josheb]

As I pointed out, asking whether or not God can perish is irrelevant to our discussion

It is not.

, because it's a category error

It is not.

no, God cannot perish, because he is, in his nature, eternal and immutable; and he cannot will contrary to his nature.

Correct.

Why then would He desire, or not desire, He perish?

 

[David1701]

It is not.

It is not.

Correct.

Why then would He desire, or not desire, He perish?

God would not desire himself to perish because his will is always in accord with his nature.

 

[Eleanor]

No idea....but he can never stop being God.
I will look up about God perishing as it makes no sense to me.
God says he wants none to perish @Josheb ....well for a start those who are chosen and predestined to become Born Again will never perish....as they have been Born Of God’s seed, they are in Christ.
So. Who are the no ones as in he wants “ no one to perish “ only God knows that truth.
You can voice your opinion on what it means, doesn’t make it the true word of God though.just an opinion.
He wants no one to perish ..who in your opinion are the “ no one’s”?..or the “ any “?

2 Peter 3:8-10 King James Version​

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
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.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I understand Peter to be writing to Christians and stating that Jesus will not come before the last elect (any) is brought in, because when he comes it is the end, there is no more salvation for anyone.

 

[Josheb]

God would not desire himself to perish because his will is always in accord with his nature.

Exactly. He would neither desire nor not desire anything not in accord with His nature. Both sides of that dialectic are prevented or prohibited by His ontology.

My next question would be, "Can the elect perish?" but most here (including me) already agreed the answer to that question is an unequivocal, "No, the elect cannot perish soteriologically." The next question would be, "Why is it the elect cannot perish?" and, again, the answer has been agreed upon with nearly a uniform consensus. The answer to that question is, "Because God willed it to be that way," or "The elect cannot perish because God desired they would not ever perish and will it to be that way."

You let me know if I have gone to fast, over-reached, or either answer is incorrect.

The next question is...

When did God decide the elect cannot perish?



.

 

[David1701]

Exactly. He would neither desire nor not desire anything not in accord with His nature. Both sides of that dialectic are prevented or prohibited by His ontology.

My next question would be, "Can the elect perish?" but most here (including me) already agreed the answer to that question is an unequivocal, "No, the elect cannot perish soteriologically." The next question would be, "Why is it the elect cannot perish?" and, again, the answer has been agreed upon with nearly a uniform consensus. The answer to that question is, "Because God willed it to be that way," or "The elect cannot perish because God desired they would not ever perish and will it to be that way."

You let me know if I have gone to fast, over-reached, or either answer is incorrect.

The next question is...

When did God decide the elect cannot perish?



.

God decided to take some people out of what would become the mass of hell-deserving humanity, to conform them to the image of his Son and save them (which means that they will not perish). This choice was made some time before the Earth was created. He then chose those people who were to comprise this group, also before the Earth was created.

 

[JIM]

God decided to take some people out of what would become the mass of hell-deserving humanity, to conform them to the image of his Son and save them (which means that they will not perish). This choice was made some time before the Earth was created. He then chose those people who were to comprise this group, also before the Earth was created.

So, why did He create this universe to do something that could have just as easily been accomplished without the physical universe and not created that mass of hell-deserving humanity?

 

[Josheb]

When did God decide the elect cannot perish?

This choice was made some time before the Earth was created. He then chose those people who were to comprise this group, also before the Earth was created.

Correct.

After having decided this prior to creating creation, why would God desire, or not desire the elect, those He'd already desired and decided could not die would not perish?

 

[Josheb]

So, why did He create this universe to do something that could have just as easily been accomplished without the physical universe and not created that mass of hell-deserving humanity?

1) Are you suggesting God MUST do things the easy/easier/easiest way?

2) What makes you think His purpose could have been accomplished without a physical universe?

3) It has already been explained that God did not create hell-deserving humanity. Every time that premise is asserted a strawman is being asserted.
4) What does that have to do with the elect?


@David1701, watch for the hijacking of the op. The original inquiry was topical. Post 270 asks about the elect. Subsequent posts took the conversation further and further afield of the op and the original inquiry.

I have a question for Josheb, Carbon, Arial or anyone else that will answer. It has to do with the doctrine of election and the position of the elect not perishing.......

Why didn't God, at the outset, just create the elect and "save" them without all the folderal of this physical creation? What was or will be accomplished by the creation? What purpose will it have served other that putting a few selected individuals in "heaven" and considerably more "selected" individuals in hell? Why the creation?

The original inquiries were all op-relevant.

1. Why didn't God, at the outset, just create the elect and "save" them without all the folderal of this physical creation?
2. What was or will be accomplished by the creation?
3. What purpose will it have served other that putting a few selected individuals in "heaven" and considerably more "selected" individuals in hell?
4. Why the creation?

Much of what followed is not and, given the digression, it now looks like questions 3 was intended as bait serving an unstated agenda (the wholesale criticism of monergism).

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[JIM]

1) Are you suggesting God MUST do things the easy/easier/easiest way?

No.

2) What makes you think His purpose could have been accomplished without a physical universe?

Your description of the selection of the elect has nothing whatsoever to do with God's having created the physical universe. The net result is some ending up in heaven and a whole lot more ending up in hell

3) It has already been explained that God did not create hell-deserving humanity. Every time that premise is asserted a strawman is being asserted.

It doesn't matter that God did not create hell-deserving humanity. The end result was one huge mass of "hell-deserving humanity" that have been predestined to be there without any means or chance of avoiding ending up in hell. That is not a description of the God of Grace that I see in Scripture.

So what I am suggesting that God didn't do things as you have stated. I am suggesting that you have seriously misread and misunderstood what God actually did and has done.

 

[Josheb]

No.

Then what is the relevance of the premise?

Your description of the selection of the elect has nothing whatsoever to do with God's having created the physical universe.

That is untrue. Read it again. I explicitly stated life is necessary for death, death is necessary for resurrection, and resurrection is necessary for transformation.

The net result is some ending up in heaven and a whole lot more ending up in hell.

What has that to do with the elect? The elect are the elect no matter what happens to anyone else. There could be five options, 70 options, or 929 options and the elect would still be the elect and they'd be elect no matter who they are or how they got there. In synergism there are still a pile more people in hell than in heaven...... AND they are there by their own doing, exactly as they are in monergism.

Ditch the red herring.

It doesn't matter that God did not create hell-deserving humanity.

It does matter for the purpose of this conversation because you said otherwise. The falsehood needs correction and the refusal to correct one's own mistakes makes any discussion untenable. From the beginning the inquiries of Post 270 turned out to be built on falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men..... all of which should be discarded.

It does matter.

The end result was one huge mass of "hell-deserving humanity" that have been predestined to be there without any means or chance of avoiding ending up in hell. That is not a description of the God of Grace that I see in Scripture.

Which has nothing to do with the elect, and it was the elect you originally asked about.

So what I am suggesting that God didn't do things as you have stated. I am suggesting that you have seriously misread and misunderstood what God actually did and has done.

What you're suggesting is predicated on factual errors, red herrings, and strawmen, many of which have been noted for your sake so they will be corrected, and the encouragement, exhortation, and correction have been ignored.

Is there such thing as an elect? Do people go to hell? Are you espousing universalism?

Those are very simple yes or no questions. They don't require a lot of words to answer or present any warrant for delay or obfuscation.

 

[Arial]

So, why did He create this universe to do something that could have just as easily been accomplished without the physical universe and not created that mass of hell-deserving humanity?

The fact is, that God did create the universe and all that is in it, in the way He did and for His purposes. The physical universe is serving His purposes and all you are doing above is telling Him what would have been a much better way to do things. You are using your perspective which cannot see into the perspective of God.

God did not create a physical universe of mass hell deserving humanity. In Gen 1 and 2 that is obvious. He did create a being in His image and likeness, and it was that being that wrecked everything when he broke the covenant he had with God in the beginning as steward over the creation. Adam violated that image and likeness and what we see since and now is the effect of that violation.

What you have evidently missed is the grace and compassion and patience of God going to war with the serpent who deceived, (Gen 3) even to the point of giving His Son as a sacrifice, in order to rescue some out of the clutches of the serpent, and in so doing, in His perfect timing, restore all of creation and forever.

At the same time, justice demands that evil be destroyed, not condoned. The contrast must be visible and His power made known. Hence the some, not all. Those who do not belong to Christ receive justice. Those who do, receive mercy, because they have been given to Christ, He has paid the debt for them. Their sins met the justice of God against sin in Christ. Real substitution.

 

[David1701]

Correct.

After having decided this prior to creating creation, why would God desire, or not desire the elect, those He'd already desired and decided could not die would not perish?

God's desire that his elect should not perish does not change. It does not vanish simply because he made the decision; in fact, it is this ongoing, immutable desire that leads the Lord to use his ordained means to keep us from perishing.

Why would you think that God's desire that his elect would not perish is punctiliar?

Do you think this about all God's desires that led to definite decisions?