What if God, willing to. . . .

[Josheb]

If by that you mean turning, changing one's mind.

Unregenerate sinners do not change their own minds to turn toward God salvifically.

Romans 8:5-8
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of flesh is death, but the mind of Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It is the Spirit that changes us.

Can I be provided with a verse that attributes salvation to the sinner changing his/her mind? Would you mind doing that for me? I'd like to read that passage where scripture attributes salvation to the sinner saying, "Oh, I changed my mind," prior to regeneration, indwelling and having been brought from death to life.

Romans 1:28-32
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I would genuinely like to read the verse that states that individual just described above changes his/her own depraved mind using his/her own depraved mind to turn to God.

Assuming you are referring to: "To what repentance do the elect need to come?"

All, including the elect, are born enemies of God (Ro 5:10) and objects of wrath (Ro 5:9). The repentance to which they must come is turning from their natural-born hostility (Ro 8:7-8), which turning (repentance) the Holy Spirit works in them (Php 2:3) because they are God's elect from all eternity.

The already-saved elect has been turned from their "natural-born hostility." They did not do it themselves. The not-yet-saved elect cannot "turn from their natural-born hostility" toward God to turn to God in and of themselves. Because they are God's elect from all eternity they will be turned, but they are not doing the turning by themselves. The Holy Spirit works the turning in them because they have been elected by God and it is His will and purpose to do so.

 

[Arial]

At which time none of the elect will perish.




.

None of the elect will ever perish. Not after His first advent and not before or after His second. I don't understand why you are picking at it.

 

[Josheb]

And because God decided from eternity they would be saved, his second coming is predicated on the coming to faith of all his elect (2 Pe 3:9)

Sorta. If just one person was saved from sin Jesus would be coming to gather that one person.

But if that person lived in the first century, then that person has already died, has already been gathered, and is already living incorruptly and immortally, having eternal life. There's no reason for Jesus to come for that one elect person. He'd still be coming to lay waste to the apostate , but he wouldn't need to come for that one elect person who died in time millennia ago.

Matthew 13:24-30
Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

The wheat are never weeds (or vice versa). Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. were gathered long ago. Just as the ordaining of their election occurred in eternity, so too did their gathering. Temporally speaking, every generation has a crop of wheat to be sown, grown, and harvested. It is appointed to man to die once and then face judgment (Heb. 9:27).

 

[Josheb]

None of the elect will ever perish.

Which is what I have said.....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Not after His first advent and not before or after His second. I don't understand why you are picking at it.

Nice straw man. I'm not picking at it.

I don't understand why you are picking at it.

That lack of understanding is the problem to be solved.

I don't understand why you are picking at it.

Because God does not desire something we all agree is a logical impossibility. The perishing of 2 Peter 3:9 is eschatological, not soteriological. The elect cannot perish soteriologically!

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

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

The saved elect have already come to repentance. The not-yet-saved will necessarily come to repentance. They cannot do otherwise. Soteriologically speaking, the elect cannot perish. Physically they can and willperish, whether they are the already-saved elect, or the yet-to-be-saved elect.

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

That is how everyone dissenting with Post 84 has implicitly read 2 Peter 3:9. The elect cannot soteriologically perish!

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

That is how the verse should be read. The elect cannot soteriologically perish, but they can physically die on the day of the Lord. They can eschatologically perish.

 

[Arial]

Everyone here has argued God actually does desire an impossibility. Everyone here has implicitly argued the perishing of 2 Peter 3:9 is a possibility or, more accurately, ignored the word "perish." A perishing elect is a contradiction in terms.

Josh,
Try a different camera angle than the one you are currently using and you will see that no one said God desires an impossibility. No one here has implicitly argued the perishing of 2 Peter is a possibility. No one has ignored the word "perish". No one has presented a perishing elect.

 

[Arial]

Which is what I have said.....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

SO HAS EVERYONE ELSE!!!!!

That lack of understanding is the problem to be solved.

No kidding!

Because God does not desire something we all agree is a logical impossibility. The perishing of 2 Peter 3:9 is eschatological, not soteriological. The elect cannot perish soteriologically!

So what? We all know that. Must we use the word soteriological before our replies are acceptable? The meaning of the passage was explained as per the question----over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And then we are told we have not done so correctly. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

That is how the verse should be read. The elect cannot soteriologically perish, but they can physically die on the day of the Lord. They can eschatologically perish.

Personally, I think it should be read the way Peter wrote it.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
But, regardless, it does have to do with Adam's disobedience. "even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin—death; and thus to all men death passed through, for that all sinned;." is restated/reaffirmed in Romans 5:18. "So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men."

Why do you guys, and not just those of the Reformed Theology, always quote the first part of verses 18 and 19 and then ignore or completely misinterpret the second part of those verses. In any "just as....so also" phrasing of an argument it is the "so also" that is the point being made. Namely, the point that Paul is making in those two verses is that "one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.

Side-stepping the first part of my post, concerning the defeat of your statement that total depravity is heretical, then moving the goalposts! Deal with what I did say, that you are wrong about original sin. I'm not going to bother to continue. You aren't debating. Enough already.

 

[makesends]

It’s where two things contradict each other in a statement or phrase.
A classic example is the phrase…organized chaos.
Chaos is not organized so to assign organization to chaos is oxymoronic.

Reminds me of a placard I made for the manager of the company I consult for: I RUN A TIGHT SHIPWRECK

 

[makesends]

My blessings come from the Spirit of God...not from the Bible.

Well, we've said enough. Thanks for your time.

 

[JIM]

Think it through.

In answer to the question, "What repentance do the elect need?" the answer is the elect who are not yet saved need to repent as a part of the salvation experience. I agree. That is not the problem. The problem occurs when we discuss the matter of perishing. The elect CANNOT perish soteriologically. This is axiomatic to Calvinist soteriology. It does not matter whether they are the already-saved elect, or the not-yet-saved elect. THEY CANNOT PERISH SOTERIOLOGICALLY!!! So, either the clause about God not wanting them to perish is oxymoronic (the potentially perishing imperishables? ) or the perishing is not soteriological.

No one here is even remotely addressing that problem.

THE ELECT CANNOT PERISH!​

So how can God desire something not happen He knows cannot ontologically happen? If the verse is made out to pertain only to the elect, then the perishing God does not desire is not a soteriological perishing. Conversely, if the perishing is soteriological, then the verse is not limited to the elect because the elect cannot perish.




And I have started to repeat myself so unless and until I read something new, I will be taking my leave of the thread. I stand by what I said at the beginning of my participation in this thread (see Post #84).

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

As I understand it, God, from before all creation, has selected those people (the elect) that He will save. They are fixed in number so when they have all been saved, then this world will end. God has prescribed who those that will be saved (and therefor also those who will be lost). It has nothing to do with them personally. The selection is based only on God's good pleasure having nothing whatsoever to do with anything that the one being selected is or does.

If that is true, I don't understand why God created this universe when in doing so produced so many people that will perish. All indications are that the number that perish will greatly exceed the number that will be saved.

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

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[JIM]

makesends said:
But, regardless, it does have to do with Adam's disobedience. "even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin—death; and thus to all men death passed through, for that all sinned;." is restated/reaffirmed in Romans 5:18. "So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men."

Side-stepping the first part of my post, concerning the defeat of your statement that total depravity is heretical, then moving the goalposts! Deal with what I did say, that you are wrong about original sin. I'm not going to bother to continue. You aren't debating. Enough already.

So you can't answer my question. Your exegesis (analysis) of Romans 5, particularly verses 18 and 19, is wrong. The "all men" who were condemned due to Adam's disobedience is in fact all men, with absolutely no one excluded; however, the "all men" who were justified and given life is not really all men. In fact relatively speaking it isn't even a lot of men. Why would Paul make such a mistake?

 

[Josheb]

Josh,
Try a different camera angle than the one you are currently using and you will see that no one said God desires an impossibility. No one here has implicitly argued the perishing of 2 Peter is a possibility. No one has ignored the word "perish". No one has presented a perishing elect.

No one has addressed the matter. It does not appear anyone even thought to consider the matter until I broached it.

No one has ignored the word "perish".

A simple examination of the posts in this thread over the last nine pages proves otherwise.

No one has presented a perishing elect.

No one has addressed the matter. The fact remains: if the verse is about the elect the way most of Post 84's respondents have asserted then it has been implicitly argued the elect might perish soteriologically. Posts 265 and 266 could have been spent decisively addressing my point and decisively resolving any real or perceived conflict but neither did; both posts deny this thread's history and asking rhetorical questions.

Personally, I think it should be read the way Peter wrote it.

Me too! The passage is eschatological, not soteriological. That's how Peter wrote it and that is how it should be read. This should be obvious from the first verse of the chapter or, more accurately, verse 1:13 all the way through to the last verse of the epistle. What this op does is remove one verse from a three-chapter exposition on the imminent laying aside of the earthly dwelling and imposed a soteriological context on it. It did not consider the verse in its inherent, scripturally provided context, and when I broached much of that content denial was the response.

The verse was not read as written.

The day of the Lord was coming, and it was coming imminently. Either Peter was wrong, or the day of the Lord was not Jesus' second and final coming and Peter was writing about an event that did happen imminently and to which everything in that letter applies. Peter left his earthly dwelling. Despite God not wanting any of the elect to perish, that is exactly what happened to him. Paul expressed a similar sentiment in 2 Corinthians 5 (and he did not survive, either). It is notable that of all the many, many theologians quoted in this thread only two quotes spoke specifically about 2 Peter 3:9 and both confirmed Post 84. All the other quotes were about salvation - the imposed context - in and served as examples of confirmation bias. The words "save," "saved," and "salvation" are found only once in the entire epistle and that verse states God's patience is considered salvation.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

That is it. That is the only mention of salvation in the entire letter. The already-saved saints to whom Peter was writing were to regard God's patience as salvation. Soteriologically speaking, the elect cannot perish. God does not waste His time not desiring things He knows cannot happen. He does not waste His time not desiring things He made to happen (the soteriologically assured perseverance of the elect).




And I really should stick to my earlier statement and not bother with this thread unless something new is posted because I have said all of this before. The verse should be read eschatologically, not soteriologically because nearly the entire epistle is escatological

 

[Alive]

No one has ignored the word "perish".

Josh responded:
A simple examination of the posts in this thread over the last nine pages proves otherwise.

This is simply not so. If you read through the thread, you will see it has been.
Why then, do you say this?

 

[Josheb]

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

As I understand it, God, from before all creation, has selected those people (the elect) that He will save. They are fixed in number so when they have all been saved, then this world will end.

I know that last line is a commonly held view among the Reform-minded but I am not personally convinced of that position. As a consequence, my replies to your inquiry may be different than the other two posters. Otherwise, Yes, God ordained from eternity some for salvation. He selected/elected those from among the already-dead-in-sin He would save.

God has prescribed who those that will be saved (and therefor also those who will be lost). It has nothing to do with them personally. The selection is based only on God's good pleasure having nothing whatsoever to do with anything that the one being selected is or does.

That is correct.

If that is true, I don't understand why God created this universe when in doing so produced so many people that will perish.

Oooooo.... Why is that necessary to understand?

Seriously. I'd like you to consider the answer to that question. If you've been caught in a red herring then that is an easily addressed and resolved matter. Whatever God's plan for the creation is or isn't.... it is not dependent on our understanding of that purpose and that purpose may have little to do with election.

However, there is an answer! The purpose of creation is to glorify God. God's purpose is served and accomplished no matter what happens to us humans. The Creator is not dependent on the creature in any way for anything, and that is just as true for His glorification as it is for anything else He wills, purposes, or does. Soteriologically speaking, God is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin. He's is glorified as a just God on that occasion. Even if the entirety of humanity died dead in sin and God destroyed every single human ever made because of sin..... He would be glorified as a just God; a righteous God who justly addresses sin and does not compromise, letting a little sin persist. Likewise, God is glorified when He chooses to save some of those who would otherwise surely and necessarily die as a consequence of their own wrongdoing. God is glorified as a God of grace when He saves. As far as His might goes, He could save all but that would compromise His justness. Grace cannot contradict justice. The divine Law Maker cannot make laws and then ignore them without contradicting His entire existence and calling into question everything He says. God is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and He is glorified as a gracious God when He chooses to save some, and does not dependently base His choice on the sinful creature.

All indications are that the number that perish will greatly exceed the number that will be saved.

I agree but the number of the saved is beyond our ability to count. There will be a multitude standing before God's throne praising Him and they will outnumber the stars in the sky, the grains of sand on the earth, and the drops of water in the sea.

Why didn't God, at the outset, just create the elect and "save" them without all the folderal of this physical creation?

?????

There is nothing "folderal" about creation and creation is not merely physical. Both those implications are completely in error and need to be ditched. I would, however, like to know where you got that notion so if there is a specific source for those assumptions then I would like you to post it so I can investigate it for myself.

Case built on flawed premises necessarily end up being flawed cases that lead to flawed conclusions. Get rid of the premises creation is physical and the premise it is folderal and start anew without those errors prejudicially skewing your thinking on this matter.

What was or will be accomplished by the creation?

God's glory and a new creature in whom God Himself dwells.

take ten steps back from the Bible a give it a glimpse as a whole without all the book names and chapter and verse divisions. A one whole, single story we have God creating creatures in time and space knowing beforehand His Son would enter that creation, live, die, and resurrect, and in the process of doing so make it possible for the corruptible and mortal human creatures to become incorruptible and immortal..... with His very own Spirit indwelling them! That is amazing!

Before a person can resurrect they must first die. Yes? Before they can die and enter the grave they must first live. Yes? Before they can live they must first be made and be born. Yes? Now reverse the process. A person is made/born, then lives, then dies, and then resurrects and in that process of resurrection s/he is transformed into something entirely different than what they were originally made - the very thing God had planned all along.

Sin is not an obstacle for God.

Sin is an obstacle for us, but not God. That God "lost" gazillions of human to sin was already known. That God would save some from the lost was also already known. His purpose is accomplished whether or not sin ever occurs and the fact sin would occur is not in any way a hinderance to His plan because He is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin AND He is glorified when He graciously saves some from that end.

A new creature is created.

For unstated reasons that new creature was made through the "machinery" of the earth, time, and space. It is all really quite extraordinary. I'm sure you've heard the joke about the scientists who summon God to inform Him that He is no longer needed because science has finally developed the knowledge and skill to make humans from dirt. When God expresses His doubt to that effect the scientists challenge God to a competition: God will take some dirt and the scientists will take some dirt and each will make a human and everyone will see which is best. God replies,

No. You guys will first make your own dirt from nothing !

God made something out of nothing and that something He made was the means by which an entirely new creature would be made. For us that took time and space, but God exists in eternity. What for us has been a lifetime and for all humanity has been millennia is for God the blink of a proverbial eye.

What purpose will it have served other that putting a few selected individuals in "heaven" and considerably more "selected" individuals in hell? Why the creation?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Notice that you're asking the same question again and again in different words. The essence of the inquiry is....

What is the purpose of creation because I think that must be known before the matter of election can correctly be comprehended?

More constituently, the inquiry amounts to....

What is the purpose of creating finite conditions so the infinite can be understood? Logically that is untenable because the finite cannot ever define or explain the infinite. The only reason any of us know anything is because the Infinite Creator revealed some of what He has done to the finite creature. Blessedly, God has revealed much of His plan and purpose to us. Otherwise, the inquiry would be unanswerable. The matter would be unfathomable. It would be like asking a Saharan amoeba to explain a Pacific whale or some unknown space creature (assuming such things exist ).





In summary: God's purpose in creation is to glorify Himself and make a new creature in which His Spirit dwells, to, in essence, make new and different sons (and daughters), creatures that bear His image. Perhaps that could have been accomplished in any number of different ways. Perhaps not. God took dead creature and made from them immortal ones. Not even the angels were that blessed.

 

[Josheb]

Josh responded:
A simple examination of the posts in this thread over the last nine pages proves otherwise.

This is simply not so. If you read through the thread, you will see it has been.
Why then, do you say this?

That is incorrect. I just went through the entire thread and searched the word "perish," and read every single post by every other poster containing the word, "perish." Every single poster repeated or reworded the word verse and explained why or why not the elect might perish or not. Not a single poster addressed the matter of God not desiring something He knows is impossible. A prime example of that neglect is Posts 262 above.

None of the elect will ever perish. Not after His first advent and not before or after His second. I don't understand why you are picking at it.

That was a wasted post. It says absolutely nothing about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality. Nine pages of posts neglected, denied, or ignored this problem.

If you read through the thread, you will see it has been.

If you read through the thread, you will see that is NOT the case. Lots of posts using the word "perish," but not a single one of them address the problem of God not desiring a soteriological impossibility.

And I asked.

A lot.

 

[Alive]

Not all members will dance to the desired tune of another member. It’s just the way it is.
I would think asking once is enough. If the desired response is not forthcoming, then move on.
Just a suggestion.

 

[Carbon]

Not all members will dance to the desired tune of another member. It’s just the way it is.
I would think asking once is enough. If the desired response is not forthcoming, then move on.
Just a suggestion.

Good suggestion.

 

[Arial]

The passage is eschatological, not soteriological.

It is both and what makes you think no one knows that or reads it that way? Peter is encouraging the saints who are experiencing troubles and persecution to stand fast. He is doing so with solid soteriological and eschatological doctrine---reminding them of what they likely already know. That does not mean that in order to understand what he is saying or give and interpretation, they must use those words to do so. To insist that others do so and disagree with them or misrepresent what they say if they don't, is disingenuous. To continue to argue the point is foolishness, if not self promotion.

if the verse is about the elect the way most of Post 84's respondents have asserted then it has been implicitly argued the elect might perish soteriologically.

That is downright illogical. And you know that all who you are arguing against do not believe that.

Posts 265 and 266 could have been spent decisively addressing my point and decisively resolving any real or perceived conflict but neither did; both posts deny this thread's history and asking rhetorical questions.

Excuse us all for not doing things exactly as you would have us do.

both posts deny this thread's history and asking rhetorical questions.

Calls for the operation of a person's mind.

What this op does is remove one verse from a three-chapter exposition on the imminent laying aside of the earthly dwelling and imposed a soteriological context on it. It did not consider the verse in its inherent, scripturally provided context, and when I broached much of that content denial was the response.

So, the OP should have posted all three chapters and if it does not or that the OP did not consider its context? Again calls for the operation of a person's mind. Your perception of denial following your remarks may very well be just a perception. And the "fault" may well be on the way in which other posters are approached.

The verse was not read as written.

Calls for the operation of another's mind. How could you possibly know how it was read? The OP was written with a specific goal pertaining to two specific passages----one of which is commonly used to deny election and support any and every "free will" argument.

 

[Josheb]

It is both and what makes you think no one knows that or reads it that way? Peter is encouraging the saints who are experiencing troubles and persecution to stand fast. He is doing so with solid soteriological and eschatological doctrine---reminding them of what they likely already know. That does not mean that in order to understand what he is saying or give and interpretation, they must use those words to do so. To insist that others do so and disagree with them or misrepresent what they say if they don't, is disingenuous. To continue to argue the point is foolishness, if not self promotion.

That is downright illogical. And you know that all who you are arguing against do not believe that.

Excuse us all for not doing things exactly as you would have us do.

Calls for the operation of a person's mind.

So, the OP should have posted all three chapters and if it does not or that the OP did not consider its context? Again calls for the operation of a person's mind. Your perception of denial following your remarks may very well be just a perception. And the "fault" may well be on the way in which other posters are approached.

Calls for the operation of another's mind. How could you possibly know how it was read? The OP was written with a specific goal pertaining to two specific passages----one of which is commonly used to deny election and support any and every "free will" argument.

I read that. Everything in it has already been addressed. It does not address the matter of God not desiring something omnisciently known to be soteriological impossible. It proves what I said correct: the matter is actively being avoided.

Moving on until the matter is addressed.

 

[Eleanor]

Unregenerate sinners do not change their own minds to turn toward God salvifically.

Romans 8:5-8
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of flesh is death, but the mind of Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It is the Spirit that changes us.

Can I be provided with a verse that attributes salvation to the sinner changing his/her mind? Would you mind doing that for me?

I ask you to do the same.