What if God, willing to. . . .

[JIM]

That is true in the sense of election. Although I disagree with your reductive view of spiritual Israel. And the reductive statement "Jews who share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation." Yes that was true in the OT, before the advent of Christ, but Paul is writing to believers (and not only Jewish believers) after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. Therefore central to his message is that the only way to God and to be reconciled to Him, is through faith in the person and work of Christ. All the Jews believed in God, the one true God. It was their actions that showed their lack of faith---they were disobedient.

Are you sure that is not the same now?

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

1Pe 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

It seems that both Paul and Peter have warned about the failure to obey the gospel and the consequences of that failure. But logical implication is the need for and the benefit accrued in obeying the gospel.

I would maintain that the only real difference between salvation received from God for those of the OT and those of the NT is that for the OT saints it was a belief, their faith, in God and the promised messiah and for the NT saints it is a belief, their faith, in God and the received messiah. It is and always has been salvation by grace through faith.

Back to subject: The chapter is about election. That is clear. So even if you were correct, Paul is saying that those who believe, believe because God has elected them for mercy through faith. Why would that be any different for the Gentiles. It is God's election of persons that is demonstrated in the chapter. Mercy of whoever he shows mercy on. Not mercy on whatever he shows mercy on. It is about those who believe and those who do not believe.

No, that is not what Paul is saying. Nowhere do we read that any believe God because God has elected them. I know that is your interpretation of election. And you need to believe that because of your adherence to the doctrine of Total Depravity. But I reject that false doctrine of election.

Because that is where God said it.

Yes but what did it have to do with Paul's topic at hand.

You can interpret it that way if you want to but I see no reason to. It simply fits what you already believe. The verse quoted by Paul is a statement God made that is always true everywhere and on every occasion. Paul was applying it directly to what he said in verse 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

But the mercy and hardening that is being spoken of there in verses 16-18 is not salvation. That should be obvious in the reference to Pharoah. You can assume all you want about Pharoah's ultimate end in the next life, but that is not what is being talked about in Romans 9. The only reference to Pharoah in Romans 9 is God's dealing with him in reference to setting the Hebrews free and all the events leading up to that.

Paul is not discussing God's sovereign election in some things some times, but in everything all the time. That is what sovereign means with God as our Sovereign over all creation.

God's sovereignty is really a separate topic for a separate occasion. But, for now, I will reject the Reformed Theological position of God's sovereignty as the mover and shaker of every last thing that is and has happened. That God's will includes both His causative will and His permissive will.

The Paul is making is not about nations, he is using something they are familiar with as a demonstration of God's sovereign election. He is not isolating that to Israel alone. Nothing we find in the NT about salvation will support that. It is those things you do not seem to be considering. The number of times the NT uses the word "elect" and words of the same or similar meaning (called, chosen, election) in reference to individual persons, are too numerous to post. God elects, chooses, calls, those who He shows mercy on. And when those words (and others) are used, the mercy is always saving mercy.

God chose ethnic Israel. Time and again God showed mercy on the entire nation bringing them back into His good graces. The mercy shown in those instances was not limited to the remnant which were eventually saved.

That is beside the point. It is not what Paul is writing about.

It most certainly is what Paul is writing about. The complaint of the Jews is that throughout Paul's ministry he preached against the Jews who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and the cross. They claimed that they were God's chosen people and as such were to be given God's salvation. Paul is disputing that. That is the whole point of what Paul is writing about. The Jews were used by God to bring Jesus Christ into the world. Some of those were saved but most were not. And as Paul pointed out, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel". That is, God has not failed in His promises to Israel.

Did someone say it was? What is in view is His power and His sovereignty...

Well yes, all who think Romans 9 is about God's election for salvation generally make that claim either directly or indirectly. Yes, what is in view is His power and His sovereignty. But it can only be in view in terms of His dealing with the physical, earthly events of this life. There is no view to be had in His power and His sovereignty as it relates to the next life. That simply is not available to view. It is not in view now and it is not in view in the history of Israel. It is only on selected occasions does it ever speak of who are saved and who are not.

We "view" the history of God's dealing with Israel through what He has revealed for us in the Bible. We either believe that history or we do not. If we do, then that is the basis for our believing what He has revealed for us. Paul, in the next chapter demonstrates that and declares that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

 

[JIM]

Not of the actual doctrine it does not. There is a difference between a will that is free of all constraints, and freely making choices. Adam freely made a choice, but it was no an unmotivated choice. And the consequences of that choice were severe and affected everyone after him and the whole creation as well.

Of course, Adam freely made a choice. And it was motivated. And no, it did not affect everyone after him nor did it affect the whole creation. The effect on Adam was that he died in spirit and was ejected from the Garden which prevented him from eating from the fruit of the tree of life.

The question is not whether or not we have the ability of choice---as stated---but the motivation of our choices. We are now motivated by our sinful desires.

And you, assuming that you are one of God's children and I do believe that you are, are still motivated by your sinful desires. But even Reformed Theology does not posit that every desire is a sinful desire.

And no one----not Adam or Eve or anyone born afterwards can reconcile themselves to God.They can't do it by choosing reconciliation, by deciding to be reconciled, by only wanting to get rid of some of their sins. They cannot change what they are. No one has ever done so or ever will do so.

And yes, we can't reconcile ourselves to God. We can, however, upon hearing the word of God, come to believe in God and have faith in God and as a result want God to reconcile us to Him. That was demonstrated in the response to Peter's first gospel sermon at Pentecost. Upon hearing that "God has made Him (Jesus) both Lord and Christ " they obviously believed that gospel message from Peter. Their question, resulting from believing Peter, was "What shall we do?" At which point, Peter told them what they must do.

Where is your support for what you said above?

The Bible, free from the false information out of Reformed Theology.

I don't even know why you said that or when what we are talking about became about salvation and condemnation. Yes Paul is speaking of the resurrection, but that does not change his statement that all in Adam die. It does not remove it from the rest of the Bible. The subject we are discussing is total depravity.

You raised the issue of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and connected it inappropriately to the concept of Total Depravity (Inability).

Wow.

"If you eat of the forbidden tree, you will die." Disobeying God is sin.

Physical death is a part of the fall. Can you show me anywhere in Gen 1 or 2 (before the fall) where it states that death is an integral part of physical creation?

If death was not an integral part of the physical creation, then the tree of life has absolutely no purpose whatsoever of being in the Garden and God would not have placed it there. The only possible reason for that tree was as a preventive measure against physically dying.

God created earth as our home. He is restoring it as out home.

If you believe that, then you also must believe that He screwed up and now must fix it. But He didn't screw up and He is not going to fix it. He is going to destroy it (2 Peter 3:10-12).

And a physical one at that! See Rev 20 and Romans 8:18-25.

There is nothing about Revelation 20 that suggests the new heaven and earth will be a physical creation. The creation of Romans 8:18-25 is the same creation in Mark 16:15, namely, it is mankind, not the whole of creation, not even the animals other than man. The Greek word in both instances is "ktisis", poorly interpreted as creation in both places. We can get into that if you like, but not here now.

All men sinned because Adam sinned. We are like our father, Adam.

No, all men sin because we are just like Adam. He saw something he liked and wanted, even though knowing it went against God's command. We all see what we like and want, even though knowing that it goes against God's command. That is what sin is. That is pretty much how John defined it in 1 John 2:16).
As an aside and back to the whole issue of free will. Without free will, there is no such thing as sin

When the unbeliever regrets a specific sin it is not because he has offended God. It is because it is detrimental to himself in some way. And he does not regret many of his other sins, does not likely even consider much of what is sin against God to be sin. God does not enter into the equation with him at all. What all religions do is irrelevant. Mankind did not lose the image and likeness with God he was created in. We are still a moral being. We still recognize some things are better than other things. We still have a conscience. But for the unbeliever, the natural man, none of it has anything to do with desiring God or having faith in Him.

Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) Sin is disobedience to law. And when unbelievers who do not have the Law of God instinctively to the things of the Law, that is a law unto themselves (Rom 2:12-15).

Eph 2 says it is God who brings these dead in sin people to life. Something has to happen before they can or do have faith. They have to be raised from the dead first.

No, they do not have to be raised from the dead first. Ephesians 2 says not such thing. In fact, Paul in Colossians 2 says just the opposite: He says that we are raised through faith.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

And that of course agrees with Paul in Ephesians where he declares that we have been "saved by grace through faith.".

 

[JIM]

I did not say that it had to do with any other god. Believe and faith may be the exact same word in Greek---I don't know---but it is completely beside the point of what I said. Which was ignored. We come to God through Christ and Christ alone. All the Israelites believed in God, but not all had faith in Him. If there was faith attached to their belief in Him, they would not have been also worshiping other gods. Some of their trust went over there to the idols. Faith in God in the Bible denotes trust in Him alone.

No, you have it wrong. People can believe God and yet not believe in God. Simply believing God is not sufficient. James said demons believe and shudder (James 2:19). That is not faith. Faith is believing IN God. That is what faith is; that is the Greek NT definition. Don't confuse the two. It is important to know and understand the distinction.

There are millions of people who believe in God---that is that He truly does exists---but do not believe in the virgin birth, the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension.

They can believe God -- that is that He truly does exist. If they do not believe what He says, then they, by definition, do not believe IN God.

Do not believe that it is Jesus who saves them but their own moral goodness that will, they hope. Ask most strangers if the believe in God and the majority are going to say yes. Is that what saves them? Belief and faith in the real world are not the same thing and they were not always the same thing in the Bible. The Israelites believed in God, but did that save them?

Belief in and faith in something or someone are precisely the same thing. There is believing someone or something and then there is believing IN someone or something. Believing IN is having faith. That is the case in the Bible.

I had a very dear friend. He was as good a man as you will find. He was kind, he was gracious, he a true friend. He believed that there was a God. He believed that God created this world. But he did not believe what the Bible teaches about God. I suppose some would say he was a deist. But the point was he did not believe the Bible was the word of God. He did not believe IN God. I, so many times, prayed for him and tried to convince him of the truth of God. He did not respond. I, even now, that he is gone am so terribly concerned that he "did not make it".

 

[Josheb]

Does it make sense to use use 2 Peter 3:9 to teach God is not willing that any should perish,

Yes, if God is not irrationally held to one and only one desire. The verse itself states two desires: 1) none should perish, 2) all should come to repentance. God has more than one (or two) desires.

when Rom 9:22 declares God is willing for reprobates to perish.

That is not what Romans 9:22 states.

Romans 9:22
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

This is a rhetorical question taken from a hypothetical analogy, not a teaching of literal statements stating God desires the reprobate to perish. The only willingness reported in then verse is a willingness to demonstrate wrath. The larger passage, however, is useful for showing God is not limited to one and only one desire (which is how 2 Peter 3:9 should be read).

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. 2 Peter.

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Romans 9.

After reading these, does it not make sense that 2 Peter 3:9 is for the elect?

No. Reading the verse that way implies the elect can perish, and that would contradict the perseverance of the saints. That, in turn, would provide valid basis for criticism from non-monergists that monergists are inconsistent: God does not want the elect to perish but they might, so there is no assurance of salvation (unless they repent).


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.​

So we see that Calvin saw the desire that none should perish was a desire God had for all of mankind, and it was from all mankind that God lead some to himself, those He had chosen before the foundation of the world. Note that Calvin uses the exact same phrase employed by Peter in Peter's first epistle.

1 Peter 1:20-21
For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Christ was foreknown from the foundation of the world. So too were those chosen to be led to Himself. We might even infer that the reason God chose some to be led to Him as because He did not want any to perish. If God had chosen all, and then saved all..... God would be contradiction Himself when He says the wages of sin is death. He'd have to correct Himself and say the wages of sin is temporary death that lasts only from the moment of disobedience until the time one is saved.... and sins all are saved the threat of death is something no one need worry about. Not only is that self-contradictory, but it's also universalism.

There is perfectly sound exegetical, rational way to reconcile 2 Peter 3:9 with all the rest of scripture without resorting to synergism or universalism.

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.








There's an alternative position to take. 2 Peter 3 is couched in the day of the Lord. Peter has stated the last times have come upon him and his readers. God has not been slow in keeping His promise (accusations of slowness are always red herrings when leveled at an eternal God ). The last days have come, and the day of the Lord is upon the readers of Peter's epistle. The heavens will pass away, the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered, but according to His promise we, the first century saints, are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

So, the verse in question is eschatological, not soteriological.

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. That does not prevent them from perishing in war. Keep in mind, nether Peter nor Paul survived .

 

[Arial]

No, you have it wrong. People can believe God and yet not believe in God.

You say I am wrong and then you post something completely backwards of all logic. How can you believe God if you don't even believe in Him? You are trying to hard. There is no shame in admitting when we have been mistaken in our presentation. The same is continuing to dig the same hole deeper.

James said demons believe and shudder (James 2:19).

You are proving my point while giving the appearance of me having said otherwise. Demons cannot be redeemed, and they have a terrible reckoning coming. There is such thing as a demon having a faith that saves.

Faith is believing IN God. That is what faith is; that is the Greek NT definition. Don't confuse the two. It is important to know and understand the distinction.

Now you have contradicted your first sentence. Faith is believing God. Maybe you don't know what believing God is. Take an example from Abraham. God told Abram to leave his family and the land he knew and go. Abram believed God. God told him to sacrifice his only son and Abraham set out to do it, knowing that God had promised him that through Isaac all nations would be blessed, and could raise his son to life again, He believed God and it was counted as righteousness. Believing ---faith that counts as righteousness----is doing what God says because you believe Him.

Faith in Christ is believing that He is the Son of God, and He did what the Bibles says He did, and He did it as our substitute to take upon Himself to pay the debt that we owe as sinners. And that in Him we are forgiven and obtain to His righteousness counted as our own, reconciled to God, justified before Him.

They can believe God -- that is that He truly does exist. If they do not believe what He says, then they, by definition, do not believe IN God.

Wrong again. Why are you having such a problem with this when I have laid out evidence as to what I am saying? To say one believes in God is akin to the analogy of a child saying "I believe in Santa Claus". They believe there is a Santa. Many people believe there is a God and yet don't believe anything about Him or even know anything about Him. There are many who say they believe there is a God that do not own a Bible and would never pick one up, let alone read it. They believe in Him but they do not believe Him. I think we have talked about this enough. I don't want to go round the same mulberry bush a fourth time.

Belief in and faith in something or someone are precisely the same thing.

They can mean the same thing if that is how a person is using them. But that shifts the discussion again. Of course a person has to have a belief in God but a belief in God does not always mean faith in Him. For faith to exist with that belief, the person must believe God. Believe what He says.

He believed that there was a God. He believed that God created this world. But he did not believe what the Bible teaches about God. I suppose some would say he was a deist. But the point was he did not believe the Bible was the word of God. He did not believe IN God.

IOW he did not believe God.

 

[Arial]

Are you sure that is not the same now?

I don't understand your question. Is what the same now?

It seems that both Paul and Peter have warned about the failure to obey the gospel and the consequences of that failure. But logical implication is the need for and the benefit accrued in obeying the gospel.

I don't understand why you are implying that I said anything opposed to that.

I would maintain that the only real difference between salvation received from God for those of the OT and those of the NT is that for the OT saints it was a belief, their faith, in God and the promised messiah and for the NT saints it is a belief, their faith, in God and the received messiah. It is and always has been salvation by grace through faith.

I don't understand why you think I said any different.

No, that is not what Paul is saying. Nowhere do we read that any believe God because God has elected them.

We read it all over the place. Too many to list. What in the world do you think it means by elect, elected, called, chosen, every countless times they are used in both Testaments and applied to God doing the electing, calling choosing? What do you think Jesus meant when He said in John 6 that no one can come to Him unless the Father grants it. Or when He said in John 10 that to those who did not believe, it was because they were not His sheep and that all the sheep the Father gives Him will come to Him. Or they didn't believe or understand Him because God had hardened them or deafened of blinded them lest they hear and understand? That is what Paul was talking about.

I know that is your interpretation of election. And you need to believe that because of your adherence to the doctrine of Total Depravity. But I reject that false doctrine of election.

The fact that I believe it has nothing to do with me needing to because I adhere to the doctrine of Total Depravity. That is a cheap shot but a common one. I believe it because the content of the doctrine is what is in the Bible. That is where it came from. Not because I need to but because I do. I would believe it if I never even heard of total depravity.

Yes but what did it have to do with Paul's topic at hand.

Try and understand when I explain it this time. It is a statement that God made about Himself. That statement is always true and every situation all of the time. When Paul applied it to what he was saying as an example as to why the fact that not all Israelites believe the gospel does not mean God failed with Israel, its meaning was the same in that situation as it was when God spoke it to Moses. That is not a case where the same context in Exodus must be carried into Romans, in order to find out what Paul means. Almost a duh buddy.

But the mercy and hardening that is being spoken of there in verses 16-18 is not salvation. That should be obvious in the reference to Pharoah. You can assume all you want about Pharoah's ultimate end in the next life, but that is not what is being talked about in Romans 9. The only reference to Pharoah in Romans 9 is God's dealing with him in reference to setting the Hebrews free and all the events leading up to that.

JIM, the topic under discussion is election. Are you having trouble tracking? Paul is discussing mercy and hardening regarding belief. He gives the mercy quote from Ex and the hardening from the incident with Pharoah. Both Paul says, are the sovereign purvue of God. Mercy in this case means salvation, hardening means refusal to believe. It is election unto salvation he is discussing. And it is true across the board, not just Israel, as we see repeatedly in the epistles as election, elect, chosen, called are applied to individuals.

God's sovereignty is really a separate topic for a separate occasion.

God's sovereignty in election is exactly the topic of Rom 9.

But, for now, I will reject the Reformed Theological position of God's sovereignty as the mover and shaker of every last thing that is and has happened. That God's will includes both His causative will and His permissive will.

Whether to reject or accept it has nothing to do with anything. And it is His sovereignty and will that are distinct topics.

God chose ethnic Israel. Time and again God showed mercy on the entire nation bringing them back into His good graces. The mercy shown in those instances was not limited to the remnant which were eventually saved.

I never said or implied ever that God did not chose ethnic Israel. I never once said that God did not show mercy on entire nation. I never once said or implied that His mercy on the nation was limited to only the remnant who would be saved. Are you gas lighting?

It most certainly is what Paul is writing about. The complaint of the Jews is that throughout Paul's ministry he preached against the Jews who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and the cross. They claimed that they were God's chosen people and as such were to be given God's salvation. Paul is disputing that. That is the whole point of what Paul is writing about. The Jews were used by God to bring Jesus Christ into the world. Some of those were saved but most were not. And as Paul pointed out, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel". That is, God has not failed in His promises to Israel.

I have already been over that with you and I am not going to do it again.

Well yes, all who think Romans 9 is about God's election for salvation generally make that claim either directly or indirectly. Yes, what is in view is His power and His sovereignty. But it can only be in view in terms of His dealing with the physical, earthly events of this life. There is no view to be had in His power and His sovereignty as it relates to the next life. That simply is not available to view. It is not in view now and it is not in view in the history of Israel. It is only on selected occasions does it ever speak of who are saved and who are not.

Well, yes, all who do not believe that God would be so cruel to not give us a choice in the matter, who would save some and not all, who would deny Him is own rights as God, think Romans 9 has no application except to Israel. And what in the world does all that stuff I marked in red even mean?

We "view" the history of God's dealing with Israel through what He has revealed for us in the Bible. We either believe that history or we do not. If we do, then that is the basis for our believing what He has revealed for us. Paul, in the next chapter demonstrates that and declares that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

Is this where you say amen? Who says I don't believe the history given in the Bible and what does it have to do with the conversation?

 

[Carbon]

Yes, if God is not irrationally held to one and only one desire. The verse itself states two desires: 1) none should perish, 2) all should come to repentance. God has more than one (or two) desires.

Right.
None should perish & all should come to repentance,

However. It is speaking of one people. The elect.

Therefore, none will perish and all will come to repentance.

 

[JIM]

You say I am wrong and then you post something completely backwards of all logic.

It has become obvious that you do not understand even what a saving faith is. There are two significant aspects to such faith. The first is mental assent. It the mental acceptance of the truth of what is being presented. It is often represented in the Bible, particularly the NT, with the phrase "believe that".

The second aspect of saving faith is usually called trust or confidence. Whereas assent is a judgment of the mind regarding the truth of a statement, trust is a decision of the will to act upon the truth assented to. It is a personal surrender to the implications and consequences of this truth. Such trust is most often directed toward persons. The faith that is a condition for salvation includes such trust, specifically, a decision of the will to surrender everything about ourselves—our time, our possessions, our abilities, our life itself, and our eternal destiny—into the hands of Jesus Christ. Trust is the decision to rest our hope of eternal life upon the saving power of Christ’s cross and resurrection.

Faith, as used in the NT, includes both assent and trust. That is the definition according to Hebrews 11:1. The conviction of things not seen is mental assent. The assurance of things hoped for is trust or confidence.

You can believe your doctor when he tells you what the problem is and yet not trust him to give you the correct treatment for your problem. That doesn't mean that you don't believe what he told you. It means that you do not really have faith in your doctor.

For what it is worth, that is the general message of the Book of James. He said, "be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves". Hearing and doing are two different things. Believing and trusting are two different things. Believing and trusting is called faith. In the NT that is usually given by the phrase "believe in".

 

[Josheb]

Right.
None should perish & all should come to repentance,

However. It is speaking of one people. The elect.

I await the presentation of a case proving that position.

The text makes no mention of the elect and that is not what Cavin taught about the particular verse cited. The letter was surely written to the elect who'd already been saved, and the third chapter is about their surviving the soon pending day of the Lord, but the statement about God not wanting any to perish is not limited to only the elect by that context. The preceding verses specify the destruction of the ungodly, not the destruction of the elect; they are the only ones specified as perishing. Would those be the ungodly elect or the ungodly non-elect?

Therefore, none will perish and all will come to repentance.

That, again, is not what the text states.


While every letter of the epistolary was explicitly written to Christians, not every verse in the epistolary is about the elect. Why do you think Calvin did not view the verse as limited to the elect?

 

[atpollard]

Re: 2 Peter 3:9

However. It is speaking of one people. The elect.

I await the presentation of a case proving that position.

Here you go …

Hello JIM, even if you take v9 out of the context that it's written in (including not only 2 Peter, but the whole of the Bible itself) it still says too much on its own for the "us", the "any" and/or the "all" in that verse to be understood to mean ALL of us w/o exception/both saints ~and~ reprobates.

2 Peter 3:9 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.

 

[Carbon]

I await the presentation of a case proving that position.

Sorry josheb, but I do not believe you have a case. If you did there would be much more to explain and prove. The question might be, does God really know all those whom He chose? Is it possible that even some He did not choose could also believe?

You mention context. 2 Peter 3. Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Peter teaches there will be mockers, those questioning Christ's return and such. Then notice Peter comforts the believers. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

So don't lose heart, you can be confident of his return. . 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Be confident, do not lose heart. 10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered.

The text makes no mention of the elect and that is not what Cavin taught about the particular verse cited.

I wonder if you know what Calvin taught on this? Remember Josheb, when the apostles and even Christ taught, they did it from a pastoral perspective. The gospel call goes out to the world, and those who reject it are responsible for doing so.

The letter was surely written to the elect who'd already been saved, and the third chapter is about their surviving the soon pending day of the Lord, but the statement about God not wanting any to perish is not limited to only the elect by that context.

It's limited to the elect completely as far as repentance and salvation are concerned, this is also a passage for comfort. Don't fool yourself God knows who his chosen are. Jesus knows his sheep.

You seem to make the Father and the Son disagree at times. You have God wanting the reprobate to repent and believe, this is a serious thing. Then you have Jesus only praying for the elect, not the reprobate. I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but on the behalf of those whom You have given Me, because they are Yours; John 17:9.

So what you have is the Father wanting and desiring the reprobates to repent and believe. But, Jesus does not even pray for those the Father desires to repent, the reprobate. This is not good. I think you're a little confused here.

The preceding verses specify the destruction of the ungodly, not the destruction of the elect; they are the only ones specified as perishing. Would those be the ungodly elect or the ungodly non-elect?

The ungodly elect? Ungodly non-elect? Where are these mentioned in scripture? That, again, is not what the text states.

that again, is not what the text states

What you are trying to pass is not what the word teaches.

While every letter of the epistolary was explicitly written to Christians, not every verse in the epistolary is about the elect.

Gee, really?

Why do you think Calvin did not view the verse as limited to the elect?

I think you should read his commentary again. Not only that, but do you think Calvin was the only reformer who taught and preached? It may do you good to read around in other theologians and commentaries. Perhaps Owen, or Ames.

 

[Carbon]

Re: 2 Peter 3:9



Here you go …

@Papa Smurf also wrote: God makes it clear that the reprobate will be judged on the basis of what he/she did or did not do in this life, not on the basis of their fallen nature ..

 

[Carbon]

The text makes no mention of the elect and that is not what Cavin taught about the particular verse cited.

I guess I should leave you with something: Are you sure you're not an Arminian? I think they may know more of what Calvin taught then you.

Society of Evangelical Arminians.

One of the most popular passages stating God’s universal salvific will (i.e that God desires every human individual to be saved) is 2 Peter 3:9. 2 Peter 3:9 states that God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”. Indeed, The Society Of Evangelical Arminians even has “Not willing that any should perish” on their logo. A plain reading of this verse would suggest that God doesn’t desire for Hell to contain a single human being, but for every human being to come into a saving relationship with Him. Nevertheless, a theological system known as Calvinism denies what this verse appears to be saying. Calvinists deny that God really does want all to be saved. John Calvin wrote that “[God] arranges all things by his sovereign council, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.”1 God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal judgment because He did not want all saved. Because He didn’t want all saved, he, in the words of John Owen “did not die for all”.2 Because he did not die for all, he “gives grace to some and withholds it from others”

 

[Carbon]

That, again, is not what the text states.

You are free to express your support of free will.

 

[Carbon]

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9.

The Arminian perspective.

The Lord has promised salvation to everyone, that is, all of Adam's posterity. This is why Jesus has not returned yet because he wants everyone to repent and believe.
The internal vital principle of a supernatural spiritual grace is a mere natural faculty, not elevated by anything divine, it is not God who begins the good work in us, but our own free wills. One man, may, by his own mere endeavors, without the aid of any divine gift, make himself to differ from another. Is this not a reason for God's patience?
Another possible reason for God's patience is, a man just might change his mind at the 11th hour. Keep your pencils sharp and ready to mark your bible with another date when you led someone to Christ by your good works and persistence, if it wasn't for that, they may have never come. So, don't take that chance.

I mean, is everyone saved by grace? Couldn't someone actually deserve it?

 

[Carbon]

@Josheb

The Lord Is Patient | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

The call to repent before it is too late should never make us think that God’s election will fail to accomplish its purposes. However, the elect will never pres

www.ligonier.org

 

[Carbon]

@Josheb Just trying to help you understand from my perspective.

Dr. R. C. Sproul states, This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment.

 

[Ritajanice]

It has become obvious that you do not understand even what a saving faith is. There are two significant aspects to such faith. The first is mental assent. It the mental acceptance of the truth of what is being presented. It is often represented in the Bible, particularly the NT, with the phrase "believe that".

Interesting....

Short commentary.

James 1:22. One of the greatest enemies of real faith is what's called “mental assent.” People who operate in mental assent read the Word and think they believe it. But when pressure comes, they don't act on it. Mental assenters say, “I believe the Bible from cover to cover.


How can you believe the word without God given faith to believe it in your spirit?

We need to be Born Of The Spirit to understand the penned word.

How can a natural person understand the Bible without being Born Of God’s seed?

It’s a Spirit book, therefore only the Holy Spirit can bring it to our understanding..therefore we must be Born Again ...

That’s when we start our spirit journey with the Lord...it’s taken years and years to be taught by the Spirit to understand God’s word...

Everything is in Gods timing, he’s in control of bringing me to understanding his word...I’m not!..

 

[JIM]

Interesting....

Short commentary.

James 1:22. One of the greatest enemies of real faith is what's called “mental assent.” People who operate in mental assent read the Word and think they believe it. But when pressure comes, they don't act on it. Mental assenters say, “I believe the Bible from cover to cover.


How can you believe the word without God given faith to believe it in your spirit?

We need to be Born Of The Spirit to understand the penned word.

How can a natural person understand the Bible without being Born Of God’s seed?

It’s a Spirit book, therefore only the Holy Spirit can bring it to our understanding..therefore we must be Born Again ...

That’s when we start our spirit journey with the Lord...it’s taken years and years to be taught by the Spirit to understand God’s word...

Everything is in Gods timing, he’s in control of bringing me to understanding his word...I’m not!..

From all of that it is apparent that any who end up in hell do so because:

God didn't given them the faith to believe in their spirit;

Thet weren't Born Of The Spirit (by God) to understand the penned word;

They didn't understand the Bible since they weren't Born Of God's seed (by God)'

The Holy Spirit did not bring it to their understanding;

God didn't start their spirit journey with Him;

God is in control of bring them to understanding His word and He didn't do that.

Therefore from all of that it is obvious that, for anyone and everyone who ends up in hell, it is God, and only God, who by His inaction caused them to be there.

 

[Ritajanice]

From all of that it is apparent that any who end up in hell do so because:

God didn't given them the faith to believe in their spirit;

Thet weren't Born Of The Spirit (by God) to understand the penned word;

They didn't understand the Bible since they weren't Born Of God's seed (by God)'

The Holy Spirit did not bring it to their understanding;

God didn't start their spirit journey with Him;

God is in control of bring them to understanding His word and He didn't do that.

Therefore from all of that it is obvious that, for anyone and everyone who ends up in hell, it is God, and only God, who by His inaction caused them to be there.

Still not sure what point you are trying to make.?

We / I have been Born Again of imperishable seed...I was chosen and predestined to become Born Again.

It’s all about God for a Born Again...it still blows my mind, after 33 yrs of becoming Born Again.

I’m Glorifying God..I’m not glorifying myself, I hope you understand that.

The Spirit within me testifies this truth to my heart, of course the natural man would have absolutely no understanding of this....it’s fantastic that one reads the word, but, the Bible cannons and does not bring your spirit Alive in Christ.

Only Gods Living Spirit can do that....the rebirth is in the written word and that’s exactly how we become Born Again.

By God only God and by His “ Living Spirit “ who is everywhere!