The Calvinist interperetation of 2 Peter 3:9

[Guest]

The following relevant thoughts are taken from this article

Divine Reversals and an Indefinite Future.
It is along these same lines that we should contemplate the implications of the Lord's threat to all who contemplate abandoning their faith to "blot [their] names out of the book of life" (Rev. 3:5, cf Ex. 32:33). We are elsewhere told that the names of the faithful have been in the process of being recorded since the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8 ). But despite God's desire to lose no one (2 Pet. 3:9) and despite strong commitments from the Lord to preserve all his sheep (Jn. 10), this record is apparently yet probational through this present age. Believers can, it seems, have their names blotted out of the book of life. If God possessed EDF, (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) however, he would obviously know from all eternity who those were who would ultimately fall away. And so one has to wonder why he'd have written their names in the book in the first place.

Another interesting passage which suggests that the Lord faces an open future (and not just a future which seems open to us) is 2 Pet., 3:9-12. Even though Jesus taught us that the Father alone knows the day and hour (Mk.. 13:32), Peter suggests that God has delayed the second coming because he is "patient with you, not wanting any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9). Moreover, Peter then encourages believers to be "looking for and hastening (speudõ) the coming of the day of God" (2 Pet. 3:12, NAS).5 Two points may be made regarding this passage.

First, if it can be delayed by God and speeded up by us, the time of the second coming must not be fixed-at least not from all eternity. Hence, when Jesus tells us the Father alone knows "the day and the hour, of the coming of the son of man, we should perhaps take this as an idiomatic way of saying that the decision as to when it should occur is completely the Father's, and he alone will know when the time is right. I may tell my daughter that "I know the time" when she'll be ready to drive a car. But I'm not thereby claiming that I have a pre-set date in mind. I'm rather saying that I know the criteria in her life that I'm looking for upon which my decision is based. Judging from 2 Peter, it appears that the rate of the growth of the Kingdom in the world is one important variable which the Father considers in deciding when to bring to a close this age. But when this criteria shall be met seems somewhat open to our influence.

Secondly, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to take seriously the teaching that the second coming can really be delayed or speeded up depending somewhat on what we do if we also hold that God possesses EDF. If God possesses EDF, then he would possess an unalterable knowledge of exactly when the second coming would take place. But in this case it hardly makes sense to say that God delayed it or that we should try to speed it up.

[Singalphile]

This passage involves all sorts of debated issues! I have never considered it from the Arm/Calv (nor the Open Theism) angle until now. I think and have thought for a while that the implied, understood meaning is this:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise ... but is patient toward you [current, living, intended recipients of my letter], not wishing for any [of you (same)] to perish but for all [of you (same)] to come to repentance." (2 peter 3:9 NASB)

That's the most natural, likely, and fitting meaning, imo.

I do firmly believe that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), so I have no problem with that as a secondary application, but I don't think it was his primary point because it wouldn't fit his argument very well, imo. Nor do think that he assumed that every intended hearer/reader was necessarily a believer, any more than a Sunday morning preacher assumes that every person in the pews is a believer, even though he may generally speak as if that's the case.

So, in relation to the various controversial issues, my take is ...
1) Not entirely agreeable with Calvinism or some form(s) of it.
2) Not helpful (at best) for Christian Universalism (for reasons not fully explained here).
3) Leaves the door open for Open Theism, I suppose.