The Calvinist interperetation of 2 Peter 3:9

[Guest]

I'm sorry jugulum, but your argument cancels this verse out for both views, and that is wrong. This verse sure does fit the Arminian model, and is anti--Calvinistic. It expresses sentiments no Calvinistic Deity would express.

The idea that God is not willing that any of the elect should perish is presposterous. The elect couldn't perish if they wanted to! Since God elected them from all eternity, what is this about him being patient and not willing they they should perish??? Foolishness. Under a Calvinistic view, a verse like this is pure nonsense. Only under an Arminian presupposition does this statement make sense.

Its too bad that it bothers Calvinists that the true heart of the Lord is that not one single human being go to Hell, but that every single human being ever born repent and get saved. Too bad that bothers them. They have some issues, don't they?

[Guest]

OK, so the Calvinistic understanding is that "us" means the church/the elect/something like that, and the verse is saying something about God's relationship with the elect. (Something along the lines of His feelings toward them, His patience, the reason for His patience, the results of His patience etc.) You say:

The idea that God is not willing that any of the elect should perish is presposterous. The elect couldn't perish if they wanted to! Since God elected them from all eternity, what is this about him being patient and not willing they they should perish??? Foolishness.

You seem to be supposing that "God is not willing that..." has to take place at the particular time Paul was writing--at least, not from all eternity--while "God elected them" took place from eternity. That seems rather bizarre to me. I don't see how you can separate God reasons for His actions toward the elect from His electing them. Or perhaps that's not what you're supposing. Either way:

"God elected them" implies that "God is not willing that they should perish". It's part of the same thing. It's not as though the elect are some inherently immortal class that God doesn't have to save. It's not as though they're safe, regardless of what God does. They're safe because of what God does.

In other words, God chose the elect, determining to save them. He's not going to end human history before He's done saving them! If He did that, they would perish... He's not willing to let that happen, because He decided to save them.


As I said before, this verse just doesn't tell us who's right. It makes sense within both understandings. To decide between Calvinism and Arminianism, we have to go elsewhere.

[Guest]

Jug:

The language is anti-Calvinistic because it is dealing with the delay in the Lord's return, and the reason is that the Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. the whole idea is linked to the Lord withholding judgment, and it so all can repent and get saved. Calvinism does not fit with this. The elect CANNOT perish even if they wanted to. If Peter was a Calvinist, he never would have penned it this way, that is obvious. If God decreed how long things will go, and has it all figured out, and everything is going according to a pre-determined plan, then what is He supposedly being "patient" about??? NOTHING if Calvinsim be true! It sure sounds like He is elaying something he wants to do, and its because of--gasp!, that little sovereign he made, man! Man's state and decisions affect God's! God purposely delays ending it all in the hopes a few more will repent!

This is the free-will system. This is an utter overthrow of Calvinistic ideas. There is NO WAY Calvinism is true, and 2peter 3:9 is part of the proof.

[Guest]

Hello all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5XCbupnHA

While I do not expect that this will settle the issue for most of you, I found the above link interesting. I am not fluent in any language besides English, but after reading some of these recent posts, and after years of reading other's interpretations of what the Greek text or Hebrew text "really says", I have decided to start learning Greek. I live near Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, which is a great help to learning a Biblical language, but for those of you who do not have the time or the resources to have a tutor or take a class on the subject, try looking up the Institute of Biblical Greek Studies. They have a very useful website that can help you choose the essential books to start reading, and they are aware that most of us live on a strict budget.

Let's face it - it is hard to know which Greek or Hebrew expert has the better arguement without some first hand knowledge of the language yourself. It feels a little like trying to choose which auto mechanic to take your vehicle to, but without any knowledge of auto mechanics yourself, it is simply a blind guess or a choice by word of mouth. I think this clip shows how there are some important points that do affect how we should read our English versions of Scripture.

After all, studying the original language of the text is a sine qua non of exegesis (though certainly not the last word on the issue, pardon my pun).

[Guest]

and after years of reading other's interpretations of what the Greek text or Hebrew text "really says", I


I think we can tell what Peter really said but when he or Paul address their "brothers" or "brethren" or fellow "elect" are their statements only applicable to these people receiving these letters?
When my Pastor speaks, are his teachings only applicable to his listeners or do they apply to everyone? Theological statements are meant for everyone therefore IMO God used the letters of Paul and Peter as methods of communication to the world meaning "whosoever may."
I think terms like "elect" are similar to "brethren" or "brothers" and are not meant to convey anything more then that.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

You asked the question whether when your pastor speaks, his words are for everyone or just a select few. Well, I think it depends on what he is speaking about. Your pastor might give a sermon on the glorious future that awaits those who put their faith and trust in Jesus, and yet this sermon would offer no hope to anyone who continues outside of the faith.

I think your comment about the elect only referring to those who recieved the letter is invalid. Even as an Arminian, I never assumed that Paul was only speaking about the people who believed at the moment he was penning the letter when he mentioned the elect. The inference that elect must refer onyl to those alive and in the faith at the time the epistle was written is loading the word elect with meaning that no Calvinist or Arminian is required to do.

I do not understand your last comment - could you clarify? Both Arminians and Calvinists understand the elect to be a distinct group from the rest of the world, so that word must have meaning beyond just referring to everyone in the whole world. Whether anyone can become elect, if you will, or if it is predetermined by God, is another matter.

The link I provided gives an example of how two different English words can be translated from the same Greek word, and it gives a very different tenor to the passage. You may disagree, and that is fine.

[Guest]

Jug:

The language is anti-Calvinistic because it is dealing with the delay in the Lord's return, and the reason is that the Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. the whole idea is linked to the Lord withholding judgment, and it so all can repent and get saved. Calvinism does not fit with this. The elect CANNOT perish even if they wanted to. If Peter was a Calvinist, he never would have penned it this way, that is obvious. If God decreed how long things will go, and has it all figured out, and everything is going according to a pre-determined plan, then what is He supposedly being "patient" about???

What is He being patient about? The completion of his plan to bring all of them to repentance so that they will not perish.

Even if we ignore the issue of all the future generation who would believe, and assume Peter was only thinking about those alive at the time he wrote--what about all the places where the gospel had not yet been preached? The cities to which no Christian had gone? God's election, God's foreordaining, God's decree of salvation inherently involves people hearing the gospel message and turning to Him in response. If Christ had returned "right away", at the beginning of the books of Acts, all those people would have died in their sins, before they heard the gospel & believed, before the repentance that God had ordained.

Similar example: Suppose we have Joe African, a member of an unreached tribe back in the 1800's. He is elect, but has not yet heard the gospel. Missionaries will be coming next year, and that's when he'll be saved. (This example works just as well for an Arminian, though your understanding of what "elect" means is obviously different.) Joe's house is going to collapse in the night, crushing him. So God gives Joe a reason to be outside his house--he goes to investigate a noise, or to relieve himself. God sovereignly saves his life, because He was not willing that he should perish, but should come to repentance. God chose to save him, and He will not let anything stop it.

There's nothing peculiar about it, SSS.


I think your interpretation of the passage makes sense, it's just not demanded.

[Guest]

I think your comment about the elect only referring to those who recieved the letter is invalid. Even as an Arminian, I never assumed that Paul was only speaking about the people who believed at the moment he was penning the letter when he mentioned the elect. The inference that elect must refer onyl to those alive and in the faith at the time the epistle was written is loading the word elect with meaning that no Calvinist or Arminian is required to do.

Hello David, Perhaps i was'nt clear. When Peter or Paul use the phrase "elect" IMO they had no idea how Augestine would interpret this phrase which i think in their own minds meant "brethren." How someone ends up in the category of "brethren" or "brother" or "elect" is by the same method that it took in the OT, by choice. The OT is 70% of the bible and nowhere in the OT did anyone conclude that God elects individual people to salvation. I think it's very doubtful that God changed methods to salvation after Jesus died. In fact it makes little sense that in the OT sin separated the jews from God, yet God provides a solution to a universal problem sin problem, only to predetermine that the solution is applicable to a tiny select few.
According to the narrator of the 2nd Peter /You tube video the word "all" can mean simply someone from every catagory. Then he quotes Jesus as saying "My Father is greater then ALL." The same word yet here it certainly means "everyone." I tend to think the KJV translators and other bible translators took these things into consideration before they translated the greek word into "all."

[Guest]

Hi Steve7150,

If I misunderstood you, then I apologize. I am not a routine blogger on this forum (it is the only forum I occasionally pop into), and I have seen how easy it is to both misunderstand someone and also be misunderstood.

How Jesus and the apostles understood election is the whole point of the debate, and, respectfully, you are begging the question somewhat. Your arguement appears to be that since the Old Testament teaches a conditional election, therefore the New Testament does as well. That of course would be a solid conclusion, since like you I do not believe that one of the new aspects to the New Covenant is a new manner of saving people. The issue is whether your premise is true - does the Old Testament teach people as having the self-determination you refer to? Perhaps it does, although your arguement does not offer any evidence beyond restating your premise as the conclusion. I know your intention was not to give me a full length treatise on the Old Covenant Scriptures, but regardless of whether I am right or wrong, the form of this arguement is not valid (forgive me, I took classes in logic in college and I am pointing out a flaw I see in the structure of your arguement).

I am not trying to pin you down on any one specific point in this topic; rather I only placed the original post to point out that the original languages should be a part of our exegesis and not seen as a point of weakness in our discussions of words like "all" or "some". I think people view appeals to Greek and Hebrew with suspicion because they get marshalled into each of our arguements when in reality, few of us (my self included) know much about them.

What I took away from the YouTube video is that the Greek word "pas" can mean all as in everybody at times, but that its usual usage is to refer to all of a particular type or category. I have heard this before in discussion of other less controversial theological topics, so it sounds reasonable to me.

If all goes well with my studies, God willing, I will be able to tell you from my own first hand knowledge after a couple of years of Greek study!

[Guest]

"Hi Rachel," John said as he walked into the room. The party looked like it was in full swing. "Is everyone here yet?"

"What are you talking about, John? Everyone couldn't fit in one room!" she replied. "There are 6 billion people, and there's only enough space in here for about a hundred people."

"Um, that's not quite what I meant," John said.

------

Context affects what we mean by terms like "everyone" or "all". In one context, it may mean every human being. In others, it may mean every created thing. Or every Jew, or every person in the city, or every person in the room, or every person invited to a party. And even if we say something like "all Jerusalem were going out to him" (Mark 1:5, ESV), we might not mean that every individual in Jerusalem went out. Each individual case has to be judged on its own merits, to see what kind of meaning is reasonable.