The Calvinist interperetation of 2 Peter 3:9
I think Jugulum has it right. There are examples where "pas" can be used to refer to every single individual person/item, and times where it clearly does not in passages not involved in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. That is why I found this short video clip so helpful. Despite coming down on the side of the Calvinist, I thought it raised some legitimate points and did so in a level-headed manner.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David
That may be so. It's also true that no one in the OT seems to have concluded that God is a Trinity, either. God has the option of explaining things in the NT that He hadn't revealed before.STEVE7150 wrote: 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.
You're right that we can't let the word "elect" do all the work of proving the Calvinist case about how men are saved. Any valid demonstration of TULIP--assuming TULIP is true--must include more passages, demonstrating from the text the Calvinistic understanding of God's grace and the unconditional nature of election. We can't just invest the word "elect" with a particular definition, and rest on our laurels. Anyone who tries to do that isn't doing exegesis, and should be rebuked.
But I don't see how David is doing that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jugulum,
I think you are correct that whenever we talk about God's choices we have to look for context as to what or whom is being chosen for what purposes. I think, however, that in the case of election in the salvific sense, that if God chose people who first chose Him, that the passages that seem to speak of God's choosing (choosing a people for Himself, choosing to whom He will reveal the Son) seem weaker to me. We would be forced to conclude that God is very careful about whom He chooses, choosing those that He knows will first choose Him. It makes the significance of any choice of His less significant, in my opinion. It would certainly make words like predestination more confusing, seeming to almost denote instead a postdestination.
To be sure, not every passage that speaks of God's choosing necessarily refers to choosing to save from hell, and that should be kept in mind when reading the Old Testament especially.
In a sense, His conditional choosing in response to someone choosing Him reminds me of a social situation that all of us have faced before. There have been times when each of us have been given credit for an outcome that we really did not plan or organize. When someone congratulates us on this, it is tempting to say "Yeah, I planned it to turn out that way" when that is not true. I think if the foreknowledge of God is either blind to moral choices or is only a precognition of future decisions rather than the placement of love and favor on those that He foreknew, then it may cast God in this light.
I think you are correct that whenever we talk about God's choices we have to look for context as to what or whom is being chosen for what purposes. I think, however, that in the case of election in the salvific sense, that if God chose people who first chose Him, that the passages that seem to speak of God's choosing (choosing a people for Himself, choosing to whom He will reveal the Son) seem weaker to me. We would be forced to conclude that God is very careful about whom He chooses, choosing those that He knows will first choose Him. It makes the significance of any choice of His less significant, in my opinion. It would certainly make words like predestination more confusing, seeming to almost denote instead a postdestination.
To be sure, not every passage that speaks of God's choosing necessarily refers to choosing to save from hell, and that should be kept in mind when reading the Old Testament especially.
In a sense, His conditional choosing in response to someone choosing Him reminds me of a social situation that all of us have faced before. There have been times when each of us have been given credit for an outcome that we really did not plan or organize. When someone congratulates us on this, it is tempting to say "Yeah, I planned it to turn out that way" when that is not true. I think if the foreknowledge of God is either blind to moral choices or is only a precognition of future decisions rather than the placement of love and favor on those that He foreknew, then it may cast God in this light.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David
Hmm... I may need to clarify: I was not saying that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic interpretations of the Bible's teaching on election are equally valid. I was just saying, the simple word "elect" doesn't convey the entirety of the Reformed understanding of election.David wrote:Jugulum,
I think you are correct that whenever we talk about God's choices we have to look for context as to what or whom is being chosen for what purposes. I think, however, that in the case of election in the salvific sense, that if God chose people who first chose Him, that the passages that seem to speak of God's choosing (choosing a people for Himself, choosing to whom He will reveal the Son) seem weaker. We would be forced to conclude that God is very careful about whom He chooses, choosing those that He knows will first choose Him. It makes the significance of any choice of His less significant, in my opinion. It would certainly make words like predestination more confusing, seeming to almost denote instead a postdestination.
But, well, conditional election is still election. Choice based on attributes of the chosen is still choice. If all we know is the word "elect", we don't know whether it's conditioned on faith or conditioned on nothing in the individual.
Yes, those issues you raised are part of any complete analysis of the Bible's teaching. When the Bible speaks of God's election, choice, predestination, foreknowledge, etc, we have to consider what is being foreknown, elected, chosen, etc. Is it a plan of salvation, is it people who He knew would believe, is it people He chose to believe, etc. Do the passages allow it to mean that He chose those He knew would choose Him, or not? Is it reasonable, or not? That's part of how we make final judgments about these doctrines. And if y'all want to go there--into a complete discussion of what election means--that's fine.
But that wasn't the topic, and STEVE7150 seemed to be accusing you of letting the word "elect" do all the work for you--importing (without exegesis) an understanding of what it means and insisting on that. I didn't see how he could get that from your posts. Hence my comment.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
I don't have much time now but i don't see how God can at the same time not be a respecter of persons yet elect a few to salvation and damn the rest unless of course we all get elected at various stages even in the Lake of Fire and Calvinism leads to Christian Universalism, which s/b the logical outcome. After all Jesus is the Savior of the World and God wants none to perish and God's will is always done, is it not?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, that's getting pretty far from 2 Peter 3:9. I've opened a new thread for the "respecter of persons" argument.STEVE7150 wrote:I don't have much time now but i don't see how God can at the same time not be a respecter of persons yet elect a few to salvation and damn the rest unless of course we all get elected at various stages even in the Lake of Fire and Calvinism leads to Christian Universalism, which s/b the logical outcome. After all Jesus is the Savior of the World and God wants none to perish and God's will is always done, is it not?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Reason why Christ hasn't returned yet
The reason why Christ hasn't returned yet is given that He desires all humans to be saved, and is patient. That's the arminian argument. And yet you say "his patience will eventually run out", so then, at that point, He turns into a calvinist God and He doesn't wish anyone else to be saved from that point on? Is that correct? When He stops having patience, and His patience runs out, will you be standing there accusing Him of not being fair, and not waiting long enough? Will then the calvinists be right, from that point on, in saying "He does not desire all humans to be saved.. today, but, yesterday He did".
For someone who was just born right before the time that God's "waiting for all mankind to be saved" ends, and God returns, and that person had maybe 1-2 days tops to repent, whereas his grandfather had 50 years, is that fair? Fairness is really what the arminians are contending for, correct? Equal treatment, equal opportunity, right?
BTW, is this god that is waiting for everyone to be saved aware that apart from his grace, no one would?
For someone who was just born right before the time that God's "waiting for all mankind to be saved" ends, and God returns, and that person had maybe 1-2 days tops to repent, whereas his grandfather had 50 years, is that fair? Fairness is really what the arminians are contending for, correct? Equal treatment, equal opportunity, right?
BTW, is this god that is waiting for everyone to be saved aware that apart from his grace, no one would?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I'm sorry, but
But there seems to be a large number of people reading this passage ignoring authorial intent, that author's intended audience, and intended non-audience. It's very important to maintain the "us/we/you" and "they/them" disctinction. When Peter says "He is patient towards you", he is saying God is patient to the people included in the "us/we/you" group, not the people included in the "they/them" group, who will be dealt judgment upon Christ's return.
To read the "you" as general mankind is to completely rip the 2nd letter of Peter out of it's cultural and historical context. Peter wrote this to a specific group of people at a specific church in a specific time of history. He was making a disctinction between two groups in his letter. We need to hold to that in keeping with his intent.
Getting the correct interpretation is vital before we move to application. The correct interpretation is that this letter was not sent out into the world with an intended audience as the whole world. It was for those "who have received a faith like ours", ie. believers. It was not sent or to be read to "those/they/them" who are included in the scoffing group who doubts Christ is returning and will receive judgment when He does. That's the correct understanding of what this letter meant in it's original historical context. Now what is the application? If Peter sent this out to believers in Christ in the first century, then, since we are also believers in Christ today, we can say that nothing has changed spiritually in the way that Christ/God operates with His people, so, we can make a secondary application in expanding the truth-principles taught from Peter to his church as connecting to us believers today.
Nothing in the letter of chapter 3 says that God "one day will lose His patience". That's being read into it, not pulled informationally from the passage. Nothing in the letter of chapter 3 says "God is patient towards all mankind" or "patient towards all humans" or "patient towards all flesh", etc. The "we/you/us" vs. "they/them/those" distinction comes into chapter 3, and is very, very important.
To silence the scoffers, the reason why Christ hasn't returned yet is because He is waiting for all of "YOU" to come to repentance. He is not waiting for "they/them/those".
Please don't try to come up with an analogy that skirts around this disctinction. Please don't try to use a metaphor that proves your view of this passage that doesn't take into account the historical details and intent of the author.
Peter, like Jude, has been dealing with false-believers who are shipwrecking the church and decieving people. These heretics were already marked out for destruction. There is no redemption for them. There is also scoffing and mocking about Christ never coming back. Those people also will receive just punishment. God is not patient towards any of them. But He is indeed patient towards "you".
To read the "you" as general mankind is to completely rip the 2nd letter of Peter out of it's cultural and historical context. Peter wrote this to a specific group of people at a specific church in a specific time of history. He was making a disctinction between two groups in his letter. We need to hold to that in keeping with his intent.
Getting the correct interpretation is vital before we move to application. The correct interpretation is that this letter was not sent out into the world with an intended audience as the whole world. It was for those "who have received a faith like ours", ie. believers. It was not sent or to be read to "those/they/them" who are included in the scoffing group who doubts Christ is returning and will receive judgment when He does. That's the correct understanding of what this letter meant in it's original historical context. Now what is the application? If Peter sent this out to believers in Christ in the first century, then, since we are also believers in Christ today, we can say that nothing has changed spiritually in the way that Christ/God operates with His people, so, we can make a secondary application in expanding the truth-principles taught from Peter to his church as connecting to us believers today.
Nothing in the letter of chapter 3 says that God "one day will lose His patience". That's being read into it, not pulled informationally from the passage. Nothing in the letter of chapter 3 says "God is patient towards all mankind" or "patient towards all humans" or "patient towards all flesh", etc. The "we/you/us" vs. "they/them/those" distinction comes into chapter 3, and is very, very important.
To silence the scoffers, the reason why Christ hasn't returned yet is because He is waiting for all of "YOU" to come to repentance. He is not waiting for "they/them/those".
Please don't try to come up with an analogy that skirts around this disctinction. Please don't try to use a metaphor that proves your view of this passage that doesn't take into account the historical details and intent of the author.
Peter, like Jude, has been dealing with false-believers who are shipwrecking the church and decieving people. These heretics were already marked out for destruction. There is no redemption for them. There is also scoffing and mocking about Christ never coming back. Those people also will receive just punishment. God is not patient towards any of them. But He is indeed patient towards "you".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
one last thing :)
Thanks for being "patient" with my posts. 
If we did a 'missing word' insertion on the text, the following would be valid on the sentence:
"He is patient towards YOU (believers), not wishing for any (OF YOU-believers) to perish, but for all (YOU-believers) to come to repentance.
This would not be valid:
"He is patient towards YOU, not wishing for any of (THEM/THEY) to perish, but for all of (THEM/THEY) to come to repentance.
We have to ask, according to the context, who Peter is referring to as "all". All burritos? All dolphins? All democrats? The "all" is the same group God is patient towards: "YOU". The "YOU" are the same audience Peter has been referring to as "YOU" since chapter 1: believers who have received the faith.
If we did a 'missing word' insertion on the text, the following would be valid on the sentence:
"He is patient towards YOU (believers), not wishing for any (OF YOU-believers) to perish, but for all (YOU-believers) to come to repentance.
This would not be valid:
"He is patient towards YOU, not wishing for any of (THEM/THEY) to perish, but for all of (THEM/THEY) to come to repentance.
We have to ask, according to the context, who Peter is referring to as "all". All burritos? All dolphins? All democrats? The "all" is the same group God is patient towards: "YOU". The "YOU" are the same audience Peter has been referring to as "YOU" since chapter 1: believers who have received the faith.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: