What if God, willing to. . . .

[Alive]

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?

I just learned a new word! Thanks, David.

 

[JIM]

Then what is the relevance of the premise?

That what you asked is not even pertinent.

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.

Oviously, none of which is necessary for God to create the person that actually results from all of you "necessities".

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......

The elect under your prescription are the elect no matter whether there is a physical creation or not.

AND they are there by their own doing, exactly as they are in monergism.

Ditch the red herring.

But given that they have all been identified and selected before there was the creation, then what is needed that there is a creation and they sinned first?

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.

Why is it necessary to assign so many to hell just to be able to assign the few to heaven.

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

That is my point. For some reason, you have decided that it is necessary for the mass of hell-deserving humanity in order for there to be some elect.

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.

No it is not. It is predicated on what I consider to be serious questions raised by your false concept of elect.

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

There is definitely such a thing as the elect. Just not your definition of them. And yes as it stands there will be people who go to hell. And no I am not exposing 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.

Mine are, yours perhaps, but I think they are based on the false definition of the elect.

 

[Arial]

I just learned a new word! Thanks, David.

That is what is so great about a computer. Open a new window and get the definition. No 25lb dictionary to lug around. (Seriously, I have two that may weigh more than that I inherited one from my dad who was born in 1906 and the other from my paternal grandmother who was born in 1886.)

 

[Josheb]

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.

Sure, it does. It is a desire that has been satisfied.

This is very important because implicit within the temporal interpretation the dissent gave 2 Peter 3:9 is the premise God has decided something before anything was created but still desires what He's already done to satisfy that desire.

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

I don't.

That is, however, the interpretation that was asserted much earlier in this thread.

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

Is this the first time I've been caught in the closet beating my stuffed animals while wearing a rubber glove on my head? The question is a red herring because I do not think God's desire is punctiliar and NOTHING I have written should have ever been construed to say such a thing.

It should not have been assumed I think God's desire is punctiliar. It would have been better to keep the "you" out of it and simply ask, "Is God's desire that his elect would not perish punctiliar?" This is now the third time erroneous beliefs have been attributed to me after I asked for that to cease. Perhaps the other arguments presented in dissent from Post 84 weren't read. Go back and read them because at least one poster couched God's waiting temporally, God is waiting for a specified soteriological milestone to occur in time. If there's disagreement with that, the last 15 pages of posts should have been spent on others' views, not mine.

It is because God's desire is not punctiliar that the soteriological interpretation this op assigned to 2 Peter 3:9 is flawed. We might say God is waiting for X to happen for any number of reasons that have theological integrity, but to suggest He is waiting because He has an unsatisfied desire is hugely problematic, especially when the entire matter was decided for God before creation was created, the desire satisfied, and there's absolutely no possibility it will ever change or not be as He determined.

The only difference between God not desiring He'd parish and God not desiring the elect wouldn't perish is the elected are created creatures, not the Creator. Ontologically, they are imperishable. If God has a desire relevant to that condition it is joy, not want.


I am going to move on from this. There are other points that I suspect I could make but they come at a cost I am unwilling to pay any further. I believe what happened in the op is a product of synergism baiting and that is what I hoped to get to. When a synergist abuses 2 Peter 3:9 to incorrectly argue volitionalism based on God not desiring literally anyone to perish it's bait. It's a trap, and way too many monergists fall for it. Yes, the monergist can and should correctly point out the verse was just proof-texted, and yes, the verse was written by a regenerate believer to regenerate believers about regenerate believers but there is more to the synergist's abuse of the verse than just those two errors. What the monergist should say is, "The verse is not soteriological at all and all you synergists have abused God's word by taking an eschatological text and incorrectly forced soteriology on it."

Earlier, in Post 96, an article was linked into this thread. That article states the following....

"That the return of Christ seemed to be slow in coming caused quite a stir among the earliest Christians. In fact, some so-called teachers in the early church taught that the apparent delay of Christ’s return proved that He would not be coming back at all. These false teachers spread this heresy among the audience of Peter’s second epistle, causing even some true believers to begin to wonder if the false teachers might be right. Second Peter 3 devotes much space to addressing this important concern."​

That is what the letter is about.

"...Peter continues to affirm the reality of the second coming in light of its seeming delay, encouraging believers that the Lord is indeed not slow in fulfilling His promises. Rather, the Lord had not yet come in Peter’s day because of His patience in waiting for Peter’s audience to come to repentance (v. 9)."​

It's about conditions existing in Peter's day and those conditions have to do - specifically - with (imminent) Christ's return.

"Many have used 3:9 as a proof text against the Reformed doctrine of predestination."​

Which is what happened in dissent of Post 84 . Sproul concludes....

[indent"Instead of being an evidence against Jesus’ return, what might seem to be a delay of the parousia actually demonstrates God’s mercy. God does not wish that any of His people should fail to repent; thus, we know that Jesus will not return until all the elect are gathered in. Lest this make anyone complacent in their sin, Peter also reminds us that His return will come suddenly, and therefore we must repent today before the parousia makes it too late (v. 10)."[/indent]

So..... Sproul agrees with Post 84 or, more accurately, Post 84 asserts a position pertaining to 2 Peter 3:9 that I share with Sproul and many others on the reformed side of the soteriological debate. It's ironic that so many Reformed theologians were cited on soteriology because had some of the commentaries of 2 Peter written by Reformed authors (Calvin, Gill, Barnes, Ellicott, Gray, etc.) been read prior to addressing Post 84 a lot of time, effort, and rancor would have been spared. Y'all are good monergists but, on this occasion, the allegiance to monergism got in the way of 1) correctly exegeting the text, and 2) falling into what amounts to a synergist/volitionalist trap. Not that it will make any difference whatsoever to the synergist, but the next time any of them abuse 2 Peter 3:9 to assert volitionalism they should instantly be corrected and put in their place: You have abused the text by ripping a verse out of its context and imposing soteriology on it when the entire narrative is eschatological, so take that dross someplace else.

They are, of course, going to respond with "pffft!" because their biases cause them to read the verse soteriologically, not just synergistically (and the Wesleyan and later Arminian commentaries on 2 Peter reflect that prejudice), but standing on what is true and correct must be done. If any of you bother to observe, you'll find the modern futurist (Dispensationalist/Zionist) resists the eschatological nature of the text more than those subscribing to the other eschatologies. Those folks are doubly-deluded (soteriologically and eschatologically).





@David1701, despite the few lapses in which nonsense was put on me, I want to thank you, once again, for having a much better conversation than everyone else. It's greatly appreciated, and you're again to be commended for setting an example. I know we may still disagree, but I've made the case and there's sufficient evidence in my posts to prove the position for those who will contemplate it.

 

[David1701]

Sure, it does. It is a desire that has been satisfied.

This is very important because implicit within the temporal interpretation the dissent gave 2 Peter 3:9 is the premise God has decided something before anything was created but still desires what He's already done to satisfy that desire.

I don't.

That is, however, the interpretation that was asserted much earlier in this thread.

Is this the first time I've been caught in the closet beating my stuffed animals while wearing a rubber glove on my head? The question is a red herring because I do not think God's desire is punctiliar and NOTHING I have written should have ever been construed to say such a thing.

It should not have been assumed I think God's desire is punctiliar. It would have been better to keep the "you" out of it and simply ask, "Is God's desire that his elect would not perish punctiliar?" This is now the third time erroneous beliefs have been attributed to me after I asked for that to cease. Perhaps the other arguments presented in dissent from Post 84 weren't read. Go back and read them because at least one poster couched God's waiting temporally, God is waiting for a specified soteriological milestone to occur in time. If there's disagreement with that, the last 15 pages of posts should have been spent on others' views, not mine.

It is because God's desire is not punctiliar that the soteriological interpretation this op assigned to 2 Peter 3:9 is flawed. We might say God is waiting for X to happen for any number of reasons that have theological integrity, but to suggest He is waiting because He has an unsatisfied desire is hugely problematic, especially when the entire matter was decided for God before creation was created, the desire satisfied, and there's absolutely no possibility it will ever change or not be as He determined.

The only difference between God not desiring He'd parish and God not desiring the elect wouldn't perish is the elected are created creatures, not the Creator. Ontologically, they are imperishable. If God has a desire relevant to that condition it is joy, not want.


I am going to move on from this. There are other points that I suspect I could make but they come at a cost I am unwilling to pay any further. I believe what happened in the op is a product of synergism baiting and that is what I hoped to get to. When a synergist abuses 2 Peter 3:9 to incorrectly argue volitionalism based on God not desiring literally anyone to perish it's bait. It's a trap, and way too many monergists fall for it. Yes, the monergist can and should correctly point out the verse was just proof-texted, and yes, the verse was written by a regenerate believer to regenerate believers about regenerate believers but there is more to the synergist's abuse of the verse than just those two errors. What the monergist should say is, "The verse is not soteriological at all and all you synergists have abused God's word by taking an eschatological text and incorrectly forced soteriology on it."

Earlier, in Post 96, an article was linked into this thread. That article states the following....

"That the return of Christ seemed to be slow in coming caused quite a stir among the earliest Christians. In fact, some so-called teachers in the early church taught that the apparent delay of Christ’s return proved that He would not be coming back at all. These false teachers spread this heresy among the audience of Peter’s second epistle, causing even some true believers to begin to wonder if the false teachers might be right. Second Peter 3 devotes much space to addressing this important concern."​

That is what the letter is about.

"...Peter continues to affirm the reality of the second coming in light of its seeming delay, encouraging believers that the Lord is indeed not slow in fulfilling His promises. Rather, the Lord had not yet come in Peter’s day because of His patience in waiting for Peter’s audience to come to repentance (v. 9)."​

It's about conditions existing in Peter's day and those conditions have to do - specifically - with (imminent) Christ's return.

"Many have used 3:9 as a proof text against the Reformed doctrine of predestination."​

Which is what happened in dissent of Post 84 . Sproul concludes....

[indent"Instead of being an evidence against Jesus’ return, what might seem to be a delay of the parousia actually demonstrates God’s mercy. God does not wish that any of His people should fail to repent; thus, we know that Jesus will not return until all the elect are gathered in. Lest this make anyone complacent in their sin, Peter also reminds us that His return will come suddenly, and therefore we must repent today before the parousia makes it too late (v. 10)."[/indent]

So..... Sproul agrees with Post 84 or, more accurately, Post 84 asserts a position pertaining to 2 Peter 3:9 that I share with Sproul and many others on the reformed side of the soteriological debate. It's ironic that so many Reformed theologians were cited on soteriology because had some of the commentaries of 2 Peter written by Reformed authors (Calvin, Gill, Barnes, Ellicott, Gray, etc.) been read prior to addressing Post 84 a lot of time, effort, and rancor would have been spared. Y'all are good monergists but, on this occasion, the allegiance to monergism got in the way of 1) correctly exegeting the text, and 2) falling into what amounts to a synergist/volitionalist trap. Not that it will make any difference whatsoever to the synergist, but the next time any of them abuse 2 Peter 3:9 to assert volitionalism they should instantly be corrected and put in their place: You have abused the text by ripping a verse out of its context and imposing soteriology on it when the entire narrative is eschatological, so take that dross someplace else.

They are, of course, going to respond with "pffft!" because their biases cause them to read the verse soteriologically, not just synergistically (and the Wesleyan and later Arminian commentaries on 2 Peter reflect that prejudice), but standing on what is true and correct must be done. If any of you bother to observe, you'll find the modern futurist (Dispensationalist/Zionist) resists the eschatological nature of the text more than those subscribing to the other eschatologies. Those folks are doubly-deluded (soteriologically and eschatologically).





@David1701, despite the few lapses in which nonsense was put on me, I want to thank you, once again, for having a much better conversation than everyone else. It's greatly appreciated, and you're again to be commended for setting an example. I know we may still disagree, but I've made the case and there's sufficient evidence in my posts to prove the position for those who will contemplate it.

This is very important because implicit within the temporal interpretation the dissent gave 2 Peter 3:9 is the premise God has decided something before anything was created but still desires what He's already done to satisfy that desire.

This is incorrect. God has not finished satisfying his desire that none of his elect should perish, until we have all been saved, and kept saved until the resurrection. Yes, he has ordained that we all will be saved, but that is not the same thing at all.

Sproul concludes....

[indent"Instead of being an evidence against Jesus’ return, what might seem to be a delay of the parousia actually demonstrates God’s mercy. God does not wish that any of His people should fail to repent; thus, we know that Jesus will not return until all the elect are gathered in. Lest this make anyone complacent in their sin, Peter also reminds us that His return will come suddenly, and therefore we must repent today before the parousia makes it too late (v. 10)."[/indent]

This quote that you provided, from Sproul, is the case that I have been making all along. The Lord is patiently waiting to return until all the elect have repented unto salvation, being gathered to Jesus, so that none of the elect will be lost.

Just because a text is eschatological does not mean that it is not also soteriological.

 

[Carbon]

This is incorrect. God has not finished satisfying his desire that none of his elect should perish, until we have all been saved, and kept saved until the resurrection. Yes, he has ordained that we all will be saved, but that is not the same thing at all.


This quote that you provided, from Sproul, is the case that I have been making all along. The Lord is patiently waiting to return until all the elect have repented unto salvation, being gathered to Jesus, so that none of the elect will be lost.

Just because a text is eschatological does not mean that it is not also soteriological.

Why people just can't face the facts of this truth is beyond me.

 

[Josheb]

This is incorrect. God has not finished satisfying his desire that none of his elect should perish, until we have all been saved, and kept saved until the resurrection. Yes, he has ordained that we all will be saved, but that is not the same thing at all.

That is a wanting God.

This quote that you provided, from Sproul, is the case that I have been making all along. The Lord is patiently waiting to return until all the elect have repented unto salvation, being gathered to Jesus, so that none of the elect will be lost.

Just because a text is eschatological does not mean that it is not also soteriological.

The Lord was waiting.

There is nothing in Peter's second epistle even remotely alluding to the 21st century. Reading that into the text is an eschatological bias. This has been a matter of debate for a very long time in Christianity. Everyone acknowledges Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other NT writers clearly expected Jesus to return very soon, within the lifetime of the NT writers. A variety of ways to explain away this fact have been attempted. The liberals say Jesus and the NT writers were mistaken. The modern futurists deny that's what is actually stated in scripture. Idealists say those statements are not intended to be read literally, they are not intended to be predictive, but simply allusions to patterns or cycle that occur throughout history. They classic Reformed, partial-preterist says those verses should be read exactly as written and it should be understood Jesus come many times in many ways for many purposes....... including the imminently pending day of the Lord Peter mentioned in his letter as being imminent!!!

Many more elect will come to repentance and be saved fulfilling the divine decision that has already fulfilled God's desire, but they have nothing to do with 2 Peter 3:9. Calvin agreed. Sproul agreed. Many Reformed commentators on 2 Peter 3:9 have also agreed. The verse, the letter in which the verse occurs, is eschatological, not soteriological, and it wasn't until the rise of Wesleyan volitionalism/experientialism and Darbyite/Zionist eschatology that very many thought otherwise. The op is an antithetical product of their influence in Christendom, not a classic Reformed view of 2 Peter 3:9.

 

[David1701]

That is a wanting God.

The Lord was waiting.

There is nothing in Peter's second epistle even remotely alluding to the 21st century. Reading that into the text is an eschatological bias. This has been a matter of debate for a very long time in Christianity. Everyone acknowledges Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the other NT writers clearly expected Jesus to return very soon, within the lifetime of the NT writers. A variety of ways to explain away this fact have been attempted. The liberals say Jesus and the NT writers were mistaken. The modern futurists deny that's what is actually stated in scripture. Idealists say those statements are not intended to be read literally, they are not intended to be predictive, but simply allusions to patterns or cycle that occur throughout history. They classic Reformed, partial-preterist says those verses should be read exactly as written and it should be understood Jesus come many times in many ways for many purposes....... including the imminently pending day of the Lord Peter mentioned in his letter as being imminent!!!

Many more elect will come to repentance and be saved fulfilling the divine decision that has already fulfilled God's desire, but they have nothing to do with 2 Peter 3:9. Calvin agreed. Sproul agreed. Many Reformed commentators on 2 Peter 3:9 have also agreed. The verse, the letter in which the verse occurs, is eschatological, not soteriological, and it wasn't until the rise of Wesleyan volitionalism/experientialism and Darbyite/Zionist eschatology that very many thought otherwise. The op is an antithetical product of their influence in Christendom, not a classic Reformed view of 2 Peter 3:9.

Even if 2 Pet. 3:9 refers specifically to the Lord coming in judgment, in A.D. 70 (and I'm not sure that's the case), the principle in verse 9 is still applicable as to why the Lord's second advent has not occurred yet.

Re. God's desire that none of the beloved would perish, allegedly, having been fulfilled, by his prior decision to save and keep the elect: why then would Jesus still have had a great desire to fulfil his final task (the cross and resurrection), since God had made the prior decision that the cross and resurrection would definitely occur? In fact, if the same principle were to be applied to all of God's prior decisions, then he would have no desires whatever, regarding his creation, because they would all have been fulfilled already!

 

[David1701]

I just learned a new word! Thanks, David.

Here's another good one, which an excellent habit to have towards false teaching: floccinaucinihilipilification.

 

[Alive]

There is nothing in Peter's second epistle even remotely alluding to the 21st century.

Of course not. The disciples at that time had no idea when Christ would return. He told them nobody but the Father knew when.
They were left to examine the world for the signs Jesus told them to observe.
They saw them and therefore naturally expected a soon return. They knew no better.
This stuff is not complicated. The context for much of what was written was derived from the time they lived.
Peter 2 3:9 is on its face both salvation and future related.
The subject is those God saves and the many of them into (from) an unknown period of time.

 

[Alive]

Here's another good one, which an excellent habit to have towards false teaching: floccinaucinihilipilification.

I can't find that in the dictionary...I did look.

 

[Josheb]

Even if 2 Pet. 3:9 refers specifically to the Lord coming in judgment, in A.D. 70 (and I'm not sure that's the case), the principle in verse 9 is still applicable as to why the Lord's second advent has not occurred yet.

Either way the matter is still eschatological.

I can't find that in the dictionary...I did look.

The habit of considering something useless.

Of course not.

{edited for being accusatory towards poster}

The disciples at that time had no idea when Christ would return.

That is incorrect.

He told them nobody but the Father knew when.

Not only is that a completely different text in an entirely different book of the Bible, but he told them no one knew the day or hour, but it would occur in that generation. That's two bookends, not a lack thereof. In 2 Peter what Peter wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was "imminent."

They were left to examine the world for the signs Jesus told them to observe.

Most of which scripture states occurred during the NT era.

They saw them and therefore naturally expected a soon return.

No, not just "naturally," but prophetically. They were not mistaken.

They knew no better.

They were informed, not ignorant. What they knew was correct, and they told others what they knew.

This stuff is not complicated.

I agree. When Peter said "imminent" he meant imminent and he was not mistake, deluded, incompetent, or lying. It is not complicated.

Peter 2 3:9 is on its face both salvation and future related.

Salvation from imminently occurring day of the Lord, not salvation from sin.

2 Peter 1:13-15
I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.

Peter was expecting his own demise imminently.

2 Peter 3:11-2
Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God....

Peter exhorted them to hasten the coming day of God.

There is nothing in Peter's second epistle even remotely alluding to the 21st century.

Of course not.

hen do not make it about the 21st century (or the 41st, or the 19th, or the tenth, or the third centuries). Peter was writing about the things he knew with an expectation of a soon return (the word "soon" means soon), and the context is the time in which they lived, not an unknown period of time.

 

[Arial]

Peter 2 3:9 is on its face both salvation and future related.
The subject is those God saves and the many of them into (from) an unknown period of time.

You, @David1701, and me have all pointed that out. It is soteriological in that it is dealing with the elect and the way of salvation, and that it is being written to the elect. The elect are the elect no matter what year it is----that is why God gave us the Scriptures. The words of 2 Peter are just as much for our comfort as they were for the original recipients.

It is eschatological in that it deals with what has not happened yet, but is certain to happen. God is not slow to keep His promise of Christ's return. Something has to happen before He returns. All the little lambs, the ones known (as in elected) from before the foundation of the world, the very ones God ordained as belonging to Christ, are gathered into the fold.

 

[Alive]

Without intending to provoke anyone, when was the last time anyone in this thread ever read anyone making the connect between 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Peter 1:20? This is an example of Calvin's exegetical prowess and why his commentaries are much better than his Institutes for understanding the theology bearing his name. For my fellow Calvinists, this is also a good example of my often-stated position the biggest problem in these debates is not one side getting the other side's positions wrong, but each side's getting its own side's positions wrong. Many a Cal theologian has asserted the 2 Pet. 3:9 verse is about only the elect when Calvin did not hold that view or teach that position.

But Calvin's conclusion was pointedly that the subject WAS the 'elect' and not those who were not.
The point the Holy Spirit made through Peter is that the elect will not perish because this is God's will and desire.
Also, God's 'desire' does not perish when all the elect are saved; its just fulfilled.
As has been observed; His desires do not change.
"The same yesterday, today and forever".

 

[Josheb]

But Calvin's conclusion was pointedly that the subject WAS the 'elect' and not those who were not.

That is not Calvin's conclusion. Post 84 quoted Calvin's view on 2 Peter 3:9 directly from his commentary on 2 Peter.

The point the Holy Spirit made through Peter is that the elect will not perish because this is God's will and desire.

No, that is the biased interpretation of this op and those supporting the op. The bias is based on the soteriological doctrine, not an objective, exegetical reading of the letter as a whole.

Also, God's 'desire' does not perish when all the elect are saved; its just fulfilled.

That is not a point in dispute, either.

As has been observed; His desires do not change. "The same yesterday, today and forever".

Correct. That is not a point in dispute.


Every single point in Post 394 has already been addressed previously in the thread. In his commentary Calvin stated the monergist position, "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 he prefaced that by writing, "....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." The elect were chosen before the foundation of the world..... but there's no mention here in 2 Peter 3:9 of the hidden purpose of God to which the reprobate are doomed. Every single supporter of the op has argued a view of 2 Peter 3:9 that is completely different than Calvin's view of the verse.

• The op assumed a soteriological interpretation when none exists in the text itself. The only mention of salvation is tied to the soon pending day of the Lord. Salvation from sin is nowhere mentioned in the entire epistle and for the elect it is already an accomplished fact.
• The op assumed a soteriological interpretation in direct contradiction to what Calvin (and Gill, Barnes, Ellicott, Gray, Sproul and many other Reformed commentators) said about the verse.
• The op assumed a soteriological interpretation at the expense of the multiple eschatological cues provided in the text.

And the evidence proving all of that was first posted 15 pages ago.

While I may not be able to prove it, I believe the only reason Calvinists use the verse to argue monergism is because they have fallen prey in antithesis to the volitionalists' abuse of 2 Peter 3:9. Calvin did not use the verse to assert monergism. He explicitly stated there's no mention of the hidden purpose of God concerning the reprobate in the verse..... even if it is true God leads those He has chosen before the foundation of the world to Himself! Sproul specifically stated the verse is couched in the first century Christian's eschatological expectation..... even if the elect are chosen from the foundation of the world.

The condition of the elect was NEVER disputed. Every word to the contrary was a red herring.

To the degree there is an overlap, and all eschatological content in scripture serves as an allegory or analogy (the two are not the same) for salvation, we can infer salvific aspects to the text, but the text is really about New Testament era Christians surviving the coming earthly judgment, not their surviving sin. They've already been saved from sin.

I stand by that position.

 

[Alive]

I have Calvin's full commentary in my bible software and read it a few times.

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. 35

But as the verb χωρῆσαι 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.

 

[Carbon]

That is not Calvin's conclusion. Post 84 quoted Calvin's view on 2 Peter 3:9 directly from his commentary on 2 Peter.

Curious, are you saying Calvin is right on everything now, or just this topic at least?

 

[Josheb]

Curious, are you saying Calvin is right on everything now, or just this topic at least?

Calvin is right about 2 Peter 3:9. That question is ironic given this thread HERE. That op was posted to draw attention to three facts: 1) Calvin was not always correct, 2) most Calvinists do not know where Calvin was in error, and therefore, 3) many Calvinists argue Calvinism unaware of Calvin's mistakes or flaws.

And, therefore, the answer to the question asked in Post 397 was known before it was asked. It's also off-topic. The salient op-relevant point is that, whether or not he was correct, the founder of Calvinism did not believe 2 Peter 3:9 was limited to the elect. He, unlike Sproul, did not think it specifically about eschatological conditions of the first century, either. The op is not merely in disagreement with Calvin; it's also in disagreement with Sproul (even though Sproul's article was erroneously cited in support of the op). That, too, was odd because Ligonier has several articles on 2 Peter 3:9, at least one of which would have served the op better than the one cited.

Three measures of the op were provided: 1) scripture; the text of 2 Peter as a whole, 2) Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, and 3) Sproul's commentary on 2 Peter 3:9. None of them reconcile with the op's soteriological use of 2 Peter 3:9 even though it is true the verse, and the letter in which it was written to the elect and the elect do not perish. The soteriology is affirmed by me, but the use of that one verse to prove that position is not. Other verses do the job, and they do it much better.

Do you think Calvin was wrong about the verse?

 

[Carbon]

No. That question is ironic given this thread HERE. That op was posted to draw attention to three facts: 1) Calvin was not always correct, 2) most Calvinists do not know where Calvin was in error, and therefore, 3) many Calvinists argue Calvinism unaware of Calvin's mistakes or flaws.

And, therefore, the answer to the question asked in Post 397 was known before it was asked. It's also off-topic. The salient op-relevant point is that, whether or not he was correct, the founder of Calvinism did not believe 2 Peter 3:9 was limited to the elect. He, unlike Sproul, did not think it specifically about eschatological conditions of the first century, either. The op is not merely in disagreement with Calvin; it's also in disagreement with Sproul (even though Sproul's article was erroneously cited in support of the op). That, too, was odd because Ligonier has several articles on 2 Peter 3:9, at least one of which would have served the op better than the one cited.

Three measures of the op were provided: 1) scripture; the text of 2 Peter as a whole, 2) Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, and 3) Sproul's commentary on 2 Peter 3:9. None of them reconcile with the op's soteriological use of 2 Peter 3:9 even though it is true the verse, and the letter in which it was written to the elect and the elect do not perish. The soteriology is affirmed by me, but the use of that one verse to prove that position is not. Other verses do the job, and they do it much better.

I have already told you about my beliefs on 2 Peter. I don't want to tell you all over again. Go back and reread if your curious.

 

[Josheb]

I have Calvin's full commentary in my bible software and read it a few times.

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. 35

But as the verb χωρῆσαι 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.

Thank you for proving my point. Calvin explicitly stated no mention is made of God's hidden purpose in which the reprobate are doomed, only of his will made known to us (the elect) in the gospel. God stretches forth His hand to all without difference BUT lays hold only of those He chose before the foundation of the world to bring to Himself. The verse is NOT about "Why do so many perish?" There is no mention of God's hidden purpose in the text. There's no mention of His hidden purpose for the reprobate, and no mention of His hidden purpose for those He chosen before the foundation of the world. God does, in fact, have a purpose for the reprobate and the elect, but there is no mention of that in the verse.

That was Calvin's take. The verse has nothing to do with why so many perish (from sin).