What if God, willing to. . . .

[Josheb]

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.

I did not ask about the verse. I asked about Calvin. Was Calvin wrong?

 

[Carbon]

I did not ask about the verse. I asked about Calvin. Was Calvin wrong?

The thread is about 2 Peter 3:9, not John Calvin.

 

[Arial]

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.

My question is: Is that not allowed? Is Calvin the authority on the matter?

 

[Josheb]

Ugh...

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

Calvin is right about 2 Peter 3:9.

I have already told you about my beliefs on 2 Peter.

I did not ask about the verse. I asked about Calvin. Was Calvin wrong?

The thread is about 2 Peter 3:9, not John Calvin.

Ummmmm.......

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

Why ask that question if the thread is not about John Calvin?

 

[Carbon]

My question is: Is that not allowed? Is Calvin the authority on the matter?

Only when he agrees with me.

 

[David1701]

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

floccinaucinihilipilification - the act of considering something to be worthless, useless or unimportant

It's one of my favourite words; although I hardly ever use it, because most people don't know it.

 

[Carbon]

Why ask that question if the thread is not about John Calvin?

Your right. I hope you can forget about that question.

 

[Josheb]

My question is: Is that not allowed? Is Calvin the authority on the matter?

I never claimed Calvin is THE authority on the matter. I simply, merely pointed out Calvin held a different view of the verse than the one presented in the op. This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board and this Calvinist's view of the verse is different. Calvin's Calvinist view of the verse is different, too. So, also, is the Calvinist Sproul's view. Ironically, I am a Calvinist who often posts about the diversity within Calvinism surrounding a core orthodoxy, and Calvin and Sproul had different takes on the verse. Yes, the op could be correct, but I think not. The soteriology asserted is correct, but the use of the verse is misguided.

 

[Arial]

The op assumed a soteriological interpretation at the expense of the multiple eschatological cues provided in the text.

Without the soteriological the eschatological "cues" are meaningless. But the eschatological "cues" were not missed by anyone. Every single person has stated in one way or another, that Christ's return is not slow in coming, as some count slowness, but will not occur until the last sheep has come into the fold.

As I said before---the perspective needs to be changed. The point and purpose of that one statement, placed where it is within the letter, is that Jesus is guaranteed to return, but not until the gathering is complete, so don't lose hope and don't lose heart. It does not need to be either seen or interpreted from a single angle of soteriological or eschatological. And P.S. Calvin didn't do that either.

 

[Carbon]

I never claimed Calvin is THE authority on the matter. I simply, merely pointed out Calvin held a different view of the verse than the one presented in the op. This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board and this Calvinist's view of the verse is different. Calvin's Calvinist view of the verse is different, too. So, also, is the Calvinist Sproul's view.

And since you say this, which view do you agree with?

 

[Arial]

I never claimed Calvin is THE authority on the matter. I simply, merely pointed out Calvin held a different view of the verse than the one presented in the op. This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board and this Calvinist's view of the verse is different. Calvin's Calvinist view of the verse is different, too. So, also, is the Calvinist Sproul's view.

Josheb.

Please stop trying to railroad people into a particular way of thinking about something and arguing if they won't comply. You are presenting your posts as though Calvin is right and anyone one who posts an OP or responds in this particular board, must believe just at Calvin did or their OP or post is all wrong. You don't need to make the direct claim to get that message across. The OP is not about Calvin or Sproul or anyone else. I am asking nicely. It is this type of thing that starts unprofitable bickering, and staff is trying to get this type of thing out of the forum so it won't be like all other forums.

Any back talk to this will be deleted.

 

[Arial]

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

The red herring is that no one said the condition of the elect was disputed.

 

[Alive]

I never claimed Calvin is THE authority on the matter. I simply, merely pointed out Calvin held a different view of the verse than the one presented in the op. This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board and this Calvinist's view of the verse is different. Calvin's Calvinist view of the verse is different, too. So, also, is the Calvinist Sproul's view. Ironically, I am a Calvinist who often posts about the diversity within Calvinism surrounding a core orthodoxy, and Calvin and Sproul had different takes on the verse. Yes, the op could be correct, but I think not. The soteriology asserted is correct, but the use of the verse is misguided.

So you say. Others may not.

 

[Josheb]

Without the soteriological the eschatological "cues" are meaningless.

That is incorrect, but at the end of Post 84 I plainly stated analogous inferences can be made from eschatology to soteriology. I did NOT treat them as mutually exclusive.

But the eschatological "cues" were not missed by anyone.

Well then please quote the eschatological statement stated in the op.

{Edited for being unreasonable, argumentative, repetitive.}

Every single person has stated in one way or another, that Christ's return is not slow in coming, as some count slowness, but will not occur until the last sheep has come into the fold.

{Edited for bullying, argumentative, repetitive}

As I said before---the perspective needs to be changed. The point and purpose of that one statement, placed where it is within the letter, is that Jesus is guaranteed to return, but not until the gathering is complete, so don't lose hope and don't lose heart. It does not need to be either seen or interpreted from a single angle of soteriological or eschatological.

I disagree. The point and purpose of the verse is no different than any other verse in the letter: to prepare Peter's already-saved elect readers for the soon coming day of the Lord, especially since he might not be around to help.

And P.S. Calvin didn't do that either.

Which is exactly what I posted.

 

[Josheb]

And since you say this, which view do you agree with?

I've already answered that question.

 

[Josheb]

The red herring is that no one said the condition of the elect was disputed.

The condition of the elect was never disputed by me.

 

[Carbon]

I've already answered that question.

Okay, thanks

 

[Arial]

The condition of the elect was never disputed by me.

Or anyone else.

 

[Arial]

Well then please quote the eschatological statement stated in the op.

It does not have to have one Josheb. Please stop trying to control the narrative.

I disagree. The point and purpose of the verse is no different than any other verse in the letter: to prepare Peter's already-saved elect readers for the soon coming day of the Lord, especially since he might not be around to help.

Which is exactly what I posted.