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.