A Calvinist view of 2 Peter 3 & "infant salvation" examined

[Sean]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is patient with us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Arminian/Non-Calvinist usually points to this verse in support of the notion that God desires all to repent unto salvation. Many times the Calvinist response is that Peter is talking about the elect. They would see it this way: God is patient with us (elect), not willing that any (of the elect) should perish but that all (the elect) should come to repentance.

I disagree with this interpretation based on the context:

2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is patient with us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

It seems that what Peter has in mind are "people". The contrast in verse 9 is between the Lord and "us". It's clear that the Lord's patience includes all men because He hasn't wiped everyone out. That's the point of this context. "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" is a remark made by people, the very same people that Lord is being patient with. God is being patient will all people because He wants all to come to repentance. If God is only being patient with the elect, then why are there scoffers around?

There's more in the following context:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness

I'm not sure why Peter would state this if in fact the earlier context is only about the elect. How can it be that the elect should be concerned about perishing (v9) or being burned up (v10) if Calvinism is true?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I want to break from this for a moment and get to what I really wanted to post about. I just wanted to give 2 Peter 3 as a backdrop.

What I've puzzled about is how Calvinist seem divided over what happens to an infant that dies. The question is usually answered one of these ways:

1. The infant goes to "hell" unsaved
2. The infant goes to heaven because an infant lacks accountability (John MacArthur believes this)
3. The infant is either elect or non-elect and only God knows

To my mind the only consistent Calvinistic answer is #1. The infant goes to hell. Why? Because the way Calvinist interpret 2 Peter 3:9 [The Lord is] not willing that any (elect) should perish but that all (the elect) should come to repentance. If the Calvinist is right then God is being patient and not ending the world because He is doing something important. He is bringing all the elect to repentance. If this is the case then God would wait until that infant comes to repentance. If an infant dies, it would seem that infant is not elect.

Am I missing something?

[RV]

Nope not at all Sean and great observation.

It's too bad those that hold that view won't pause for a moment and see that as a problem. That should cause someone to say, wait a minute, I may have to rethink this.

Whenever I ask tough questions, I get "well God doesn't have to answer to anyone".

[RICHinCHRIST]

It could be argued that an infant's death was instigated by an outside source. For instance, if an elect child was aborted, he never had the chance to repent even though God knew he would. This could be an argument for #3. This, however, probably sounds too much like Arminianism because the free will of the aborter is involved.

[Candlepower]

Sean, et al,

When I was a Calvinist, I believed Calvin’s doctrine of election was correct. Based on my recollection of my reasoning back then, it seems to me option #3 is most consistent with how I understood Calvin’s doctrine. I thought then that God (and only God) knew whether a dead infant would or would not have come to repentance if it had come to maturity. My thinking then went something like this:

1) Some infants are elect and some are not – a condition predetermined by God from eternity past.
2) It is not humanly possible to know if an infant is elect or damned.
3) When an elect infant dies, it goes to heaven where it never perishes.
4) When a non-elect infant dies, it is eventually cast into a lake of fire where, according to God’s good pleasure, it is tormented in flames forever. (Picture that!)
5) Repentance was not the issue because the elect child never got to repent visibly, which God knew it would have if had it lived. IT’S A MYSTERY, don'tchaknow!

It all seems like twisted philosophy to me now. Maybe I didn't understand Calvinism as well I should have back then. I probably wasn't a good Calvinist. But then, I'm not a good non-Calvinist either. Calvin’s doctrine of election was a carry-over from Augustine’s view of God’s nature, which was a carry-over from the pagan fatalism he never shook off. Augustine blended Scripture with Greek fatalism and came up with what we now call Calvinism. That’s why Calvinists mess up so badly on texts like II Peter 3.

IMO.

Candlepower

[Candlepower]

It could be argued that an infant's death was instigated by an outside source. For instance, if an elect child was aborted, he never had the chance to repent even though God knew he would. This could be an argument for #3. This, however, probably sounds too much like Arminianism because the free will of the aborter is involved.

I'm jumping in again on this issue, because I see another way to approach it. From my understanding of the Calvinist view of God's sovereign predestination of all things, the aborter (complicit with the mother and probably the father) really had no choice whether or not to kill the infant. God ordained it. I see no way to escape the conclusion that Calvinist doctrine requires, which is that God is responsible for every abortion. Contriving "mysteries" and "decrees" to cover their doctrinal error only deepens it.

Candlepower

[Jeff]

It could be argued that an infant's death was instigated by an outside source. For instance, if an elect child was aborted, he never had the chance to repent even though God knew he would. This could be an argument for #3. This, however, probably sounds too much like Arminianism because the free will of the aborter is involved.

I'm jumping in again on this issue, because I see another way to approach it. From my understanding of the Calvinist view of God's sovereign predestination of all things, the aborter (complicit with the mother and probably the father) really had no choice whether or not to kill the infant. God ordained it. I see no way to escape the conclusion that Calvinist doctrine requires, which is that God is responsible for every abortion. Contriving "mysteries" and "decrees" to cover their doctrinal error only deepens it.

Candlepower

Amen!

[GordonWayneWatts]

It could be argued that an infant's death was instigated by an outside source. For instance, if an elect child was aborted, he never had the chance to repent even though God knew he would. This could be an argument for #3. This, however, probably sounds too much like Arminianism because the free will of the aborter is involved.

Ah, this is the 'other' thread: Thx 4 mentioning its existance.

I did try to address this matter at http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ant#p49380 in your later thread, titled: "Infants, Soteriology, and Hell," where I offer a novel, but Scriptural, solution to the problem of where and when, precisely, the children will be given a chance to exercise Free Will. Hint: It's in physical bodies, and the lamb and the lion will together lie down and exercise of Free Will is shown in the rebellion at the end of this epoch, and if a man lives to be a hundred & dies, they'll say "man, he was just a child."

[GordonWayneWatts]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is patient with us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Arminian/Non-Calvinist usually points to this verse in support of the notion that God desires all to repent unto salvation. Many times the Calvinist response is that Peter is talking about the elect. They would see it this way: God is patient with us (elect), not willing that any (of the elect) should perish but that all (the elect) should come to repentance.

I disagree with this interpretation based on the context:

2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is patient with us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

It seems that what Peter has in mind are "people". The contrast in verse 9 is between the Lord and "us". It's clear that the Lord's patience includes all men because He hasn't wiped everyone out. That's the point of this context. "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" is a remark made by people, the very same people that Lord is being patient with. God is being patient will all people because He wants all to come to repentance. If God is only being patient with the elect, then why are there scoffers around?

There's more in the following context:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness

I'm not sure why Peter would state this if in fact the earlier context is only about the elect. How can it be that the elect should be concerned about perishing (v9) or being burned up (v10) if Calvinism is true?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I want to break from this for a moment and get to what I really wanted to post about. I just wanted to give 2 Peter 3 as a backdrop.

What I've puzzled about is how Calvinist seem divided over what happens to an infant that dies. The question is usually answered one of these ways:

1. The infant goes to "hell" unsaved
2. The infant goes to heaven because an infant lacks accountability (John MacArthur believes this)
3. The infant is either elect or non-elect and only God knows

To my mind the only consistent Calvinistic answer is #1. The infant goes to hell. Why? Because the way Calvinist interpret 2 Peter 3:9 [The Lord is] not willing that any (elect) should perish but that all (the elect) should come to repentance. If the Calvinist is right then God is being patient and not ending the world because He is doing something important. He is bringing all the elect to repentance. If this is the case then God would wait until that infant comes to repentance. If an infant dies, it would seem that infant is not elect.

Am I missing something?

Yes - you missed the actual answer: See my profile, and look at my 3 other posts, where exegesis makes a hermeneutics case for the millennium as the place where the infants eventually end up to exercise free will, after reuniting with family and living in physical (not spiritual) bodies: Hint: A person can live to be a hundred and die and be considered just a child (death implies physical bodies) and the rebellion at the end of the millennium (in Revelation) proves Free Will is never stripped - and angels were in heaven, which is precedent that even in heaven Free Will is not stripped: One third fell = proof of free will.

[Sean]

Am I missing something?

Yes - you missed the actual answer: See my profile, and look at my 3 other posts, where exegesis makes a hermeneutics case for the millennium as the place where the infants eventually end up to exercise free will, after reuniting with family and living in physical (not spiritual) bodies: Hint: A person can live to be a hundred and die and be considered just a child (death implies physical bodies) and the rebellion at the end of the millennium (in Revelation) proves Free Will is never stripped - and angels were in heaven, which is precedent that even in heaven Free Will is not stripped: One third fell = proof of free will.

I've always thought that the millennium would be a great place for God to deal with those who die as infants or are mentally handicapped or never heard the gospel, etc. But since I'm Amillennial, I don't think there is going to be a future millennium, I believe we are in it now.

But to your point as posted here, I'm confused as to why premillennialist quote Isaiah 65:20 to try and prove or point to a future millennial state. The passage starts out this way:

Is 65:17“Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
20“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reacha a hundred
will be considered accursed.

So exegetically, one cannot arrive at the conclusion that this (Isa 65:20) is about the millennium, but rather the new heavens and new earth. And the book of revelation puts this period of time after the millennium.

[dwilkins]

I'd suggest that the passage in 2nd Peter fits the New Testament narrative better if it is seen as an extension of Romans 9-11. There is no particular reason to make it any more than this.

Doug