2 Peter 3:9

[Jarthur001]

While I'm not all that old (though I feel it--bad knees and bad back), I think you are missing what the text is saying. Ephesians 1:4 clearly says "He (God) chose us." "Chose us" is the main verb and it is clearly describing God's action. When did He do the choosing? Before the foundation of the world. How did He do it? In Christ. Why did He do it? That we should be holy and blameless before Him.

Now, Ephesians, and other books, talk about the concept of "In Christ." There is a union between Christ and His elect (those chosen by God). Now, this union is a bit mystical and difficult to explain but it is clear that Jesus uniquely represents His elect before God. So, when Jesus was on the cross it is as if all of His elect were on the cross. When He was in the grave it is as if all His elect were in the grave. When He rose from the dead it is as if all His elect were raised from the dead.

This is why Paul says



And in 1 Corinthians, Paul writes:



So, there is a union and we enter into this union not by our own will, but by God's choosing.

The Archangel

Hello,

There are two ways at looking at the phrase "in Christ", and both must be understood based on the context.

Most of the time in Eph 1"in Christ" (and its equivalents) refers to Christ as the agent ......or means which God performs his divine plan. And in other contexts, it refers to Christ as the federal head of the elect. This proper understanding of "in Christ" helps prevent distortions seen here on the BB by so many grasping for a debate point on how to handle Eph1

The doctrine of predestination is often attached with words that only work in English. The
phrase remains susceptible to all kinds of strange and mystical interpretations.

"In Christ" refers to Christ's agency and representation, and not our being "inside" of Christ in a mystical or even physical sense.

In fact, "en" in the Greek can be translated "in,""by," "through" or "with," and sometimes "the causal sense of en is more intelligible than the local.

I like to point to a verse like Eph 2:7

King James Bible
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
​

through in verse 7 is that Greek Word en. I believe this tells us a lot.

The best way to read most of the in Christ phases in chapter 1 is....THROUGH THE WORK OF CHRIST.


As to the union, you talked about above, this can best be seen in the federal headship of Christ.

This is how many would like to read the phrase. (I do not believe this meaning is found in most of the phrases in chapter 1)......If you read God chose us "in him" like we were in a group...already saved when Christ choose the group to do something with.

This is not only silly but it does not mean we are the ones who place ourselves "in him"!

Individuals never chose to be in Adam, (born) but he was still the federal head of all of humanity, and Paul writes that all fell into sin and death in Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22).

So, for the elect to be "in Christ" means only that Christ is the federal head of the elect. Or the new Adam.

Still I feel we must address the "electing a group idea." This is what they are saying when they try to misuse the phrase "in Christ", so we must show how silly it is.

When God thinks of a nation/church/Kingdom, (which is the main point of Eph. (A Handbook for the Kingdom)) he is also thinking of all the individuals in the Kingdom. A Kingdom is not land. The church is not a building. Both are the sum of all those individuals whom God has chosen as PEOPLE to makeup the Kingdom/church, and he has exhaustive knowledge of every individual.

 

[convicted1]

Unfortunately, in the Matthew passage, you are ignoring vs. 23-30 which give a great understanding to the context of the vs 16-22.

So, until we are comparing apples to apples or oranges to oranges, you will have to go without an answer, because there is no such thing as an "appleorange."

Blessings,

The Archangel

I may be "swatting the hornet's nest" with a very short stick when I "hook horns" with you Brother, bu I do want to address this statement.

This is a false comparison. It is like comparing a square and a circle, suggesting they are the same thing.

I do not feel that these two scriptures are a false comparison. John 6:44 says this right here:

NIV 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

ESV 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

NASB 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

RSV 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

YLT 44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

I showed you several different translation of John 6:44 and they all say pretty much the same thing.

Now how can anyone correlate John 6:44 with Matt. 19:16-22?

Here is Matt. 19:23-30:

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.I don't know of any "A's" who would disagree with this. You can put NOTHING between you and God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.Again, no "A's" would argue with the "C's" about this. It's that we "A's" hold to the statement "they chose to forsake all", whereas it seems that the "C's" believe they(elect) are COMPELLED to do this.

30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

So to me, verses 23-30 have no bearing on verses 16-22 as far as who can and can't come. That rich young man even stated, "Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus then told him what he must do, and when He told him to sell his worldly possession, that's when the "rubber met the road", and he wheeled around and left. Jesus then tells His Disciples who can't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. It's not because of their riches that they go there, but they put their trust in those riches, and want to live "high on the hog" and do things their own way.

This man came to Jesus, regardless what belief system any of us have. He called Him "Good Master", and Jesus in turn told him what he must do, and he left. Even stated that Jesus loved him. So again, can anyone correlate Matt. 19:16-22 with John 6:44??

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Robert Snow]

An example of a militant Calvinist, out to convert non-Calvinists to Calvinism.

What else would they do. After all, they aren't interested in actually reaching people the Gospel. That's God's responsibility. Since those they call the elect are automatically saved, why bother?

 

[preacher4truth]

What else would they do. After all, they aren't interested in actually reaching people the Gospel. That's God's responsibility. Since those they call the elect are automatically saved, why bother?

I believe the Reformed Doctrines. They're in the Scriptures plainly. Our entire passion is on winning the lost, and on preaching the Word expositionally. Your indictment is assumptive, and is the same charge laid upon Calvinists by those who don't see this teaching. Perhaps hypers would be this way, but to paint with a borad brush this description, is shallow thinking, and emotional reasoning.

 

[kyredneck]

No. On the contrary, can any of the "elect" perish? Why would "...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" even need to be stated if this is speaking of the elect? Is there an alternate possible outcome for them besides salvation?

IMO, you make an excellent point webdog. Thus the need for the 'preterist modifier' of post #5. The 'perishing' would be in that wrath that was to come upon that generation of Jews.

 

[Robert Snow]

I believe the Reformed Doctrines. They're in the Scriptures plainly. Our entire passion is on winning the lost, and on preaching the Word expositionally. Your indictment is assumptive, and is the same charge laid upon Calvinists by those who don't see this teaching. Perhaps hypers would be this way, but to paint with a borad brush this description, is shallow thinking, and emotional reasoning.

Well it sure fits the Primitive Baptist church I attended last Sunday. I believe it fits most of the Calvinistic churches as well. They might not want to admit it, but if the shoe fits...

 

[The Archangel]

What else would they do. After all, they aren't interested in actually reaching people the Gospel. That's God's responsibility. Since those they call the elect are automatically saved, why bother?

What a hideously stupid thing to say. It is patently false.

Most of the Calvinists I know (who are pastors) give huge amounts to missions, equip their people to do evangelism, send people out as missionaries, etc.

In our own church, our giving to missions has increased 350% since I became pastor 2 years ago.

Not only is your statement wrong, it is incendiary and you have been told before, I'm sure, that it is not true. Therefore, you are spreading a falsehood about us and, by such actions, you are engaging in conduct unbecoming someone who calls himself a Christian. In fact, in other contexts, this statement would leave you open for a charge of libel.

A word to the wise here should be sufficient.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Ooops..I overlooked this.

No one can say this is not believers he is speaking of. The context DEMANDS IT

The debate lies in one word.

PERISH

The way I read it, as I said before....is this way...


UNDERLINE MY WORDS

To me its clear.

An awful lot of hoops to jump through to define "perish"

The text is clear. God is being patient with us. He is longsuffering. He doesn't want any to perish, but for all to repent. All of this makes NO sense if this is speaking of the elect no matter how much anyone tries to make it fit their theology. Let the plain reading be the plain reading...the elect cannot perish, and to even say He is not wish for any to perish means He is speaking of mankind.

 

[The Archangel]

Hello,

There are two ways at looking at the phrase "in Christ", and both must be understood based on the context.

Most of the time in Eph 1"in Christ" (and its equivalents) refers to Christ as the agent ......or means which God performs his divine plan. And in other contexts, it refers to Christ as the federal head of the elect. This proper understanding of "in Christ" helps prevent distortions seen here on the BB by so many grasping for a debate point on how to handle Eph1

The doctrine of predestination is often attached with words that only work in English. The
phrase remains susceptible to all kinds of strange and mystical interpretations.

"In Christ" refers to Christ's agency and representation, and not our being "inside" of Christ in a mystical or even physical sense.

In fact, "en" in the Greek can be translated "in,""by," "through" or "with," and sometimes "the causal sense of en is more intelligible than the local.

I like to point to a verse like Eph 2:7

King James Bible
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
​

through in verse 7 is that Greek Word en. I believe this tells us a lot.

The best way to read most of the in Christ phases in chapter 1 is....THROUGH THE WORK OF CHRIST.


As to the union, you talked about above, this can best be seen in the federal headship of Christ.

This is how many would like to read the phrase. (I do not believe this meaning is found in most of the phrases in chapter 1)......If you read God chose us "in him" like we were in a group...already saved when Christ choose the group to do something with.

This is not only silly but it does not mean we are the ones who place ourselves "in him"!

Individuals never chose to be in Adam, (born) but he was still the federal head of all of humanity, and Paul writes that all fell into sin and death in Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22).

So, for the elect to be "in Christ" means only that Christ is the federal head of the elect. Or the new Adam.

Still I feel we must address the "electing a group idea." This is what they are saying when they try to misuse the phrase "in Christ", so we must show how silly it is.

When God thinks of a nation/church/Kingdom, (which is the main point of Eph. (A Handbook for the Kingdom)) he is also thinking of all the individuals in the Kingdom. A Kingdom is not land. The church is not a building. Both are the sum of all those individuals whom God has chosen as PEOPLE to makeup the Kingdom/church, and he has exhaustive knowledge of every individual.

All good points. But I used marriage as the example because that example was in Ephesians. Also, many don't agree with the federal headship of Adam, therefore they would reject the federal headship of Christ.

Also, it may (and I stress "may") be too far of a stretch to say "Through the work of Christ." Is that how we receive our blessings, etc.? Absolutely. But the preposition εν does not necessarily imply "work of." So while I would absolutely argue that our blessings are through the work of Christ, I would be very careful about arguing that from the preposition alone.

Εν is one of the widest ranging prepositions. As I'm sure you know, most prepositions' meanings are governed by the case of its object. Εν always takes its object in the dative case. Therefore there is a wide range of translation/meaning possibilities based on how one takes the dative.

In any event, the work of Christ being efficacious for His elect is based on being "In Him" and being chosen by God to be in Him before the foundation of the world. Whether εν is taken to be "in" or "by" or "through" the point is that we are in Christ by God's choosing, not our own.

As for the group vs. individual thing....I don't think we can eliminate the idea of a group being in Christ. In the Bible, there is always a tension and a cross-over between individuals and the larger group. Right now I'm working on a concept to explain this crossover.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

What a hideously stupid thing to say. It is patently false.

Most of the Calvinists I know (who are pastors) give huge amounts to missions, equip their people to do evangelism, send people out as missionaries, etc.

In our own church, our giving to missions has increased 350% since I became pastor 2 years ago.

Not only is your statement wrong, it is incendiary and you have been told before, I'm sure, that it is not true. Therefore, you are spreading a falsehood about us and, by such actions, you are engaging in conduct unbecoming someone who calls himself a Christian. In fact, in other contexts, this statement would leave you open for a charge of libel.

A word to the wise here should be sufficient.

The Archangel

I stand by my statement. If you feel the need to file a law suit on me for libel, so be it. :tongue3:

On two occasions the pastor (Elder) of this Primitive Baptist church said that it did not matter if a person heard the Gospel or not, if they are part of the Elect they are saved!

It seem at least some Calvinist say one thing and do another!

 

[preacher4truth]

An awful lot of hoops to jump through to define "perish"

The text is clear. God is being patient with us. He is longsuffering. He doesn't want any to perish, but for all to repent. All of this makes NO sense if this is speaking of the elect no matter how much anyone tries to make it fit their theology. Let the plain reading be the plain reading...the elect cannot perish, and to even say He is not wish for any to perish means He is speaking of mankind.

Did you believe that you would perish when you heard the Gospel? Being saved, are you elect?

I see nothing conflicting with this word and elect being used in the same context.

 

[kyredneck]

Well it sure fits the Primitive Baptist church I attended last Sunday. I believe it fits most of the Calvinistic churches as well. They might not want to admit it, but if the shoe fits...

Just curious Robert, what did you tell your own home Church concerning your absence when you went in privily to spy out the liberty of the Primitive Baptists? Did you report back to them? Or did they even miss you? Or do you even have a home Church?

but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: 1 Pet 3:15

The above passage illustrates the most common way the gospel of Jesus Christ has always been spread down through the ages, with or without organized missions and mission boards. Many times has a door been opened to the word for me on account of someone asking me concerning that hope, and I praise the Lord for that because He placed me in those situations at just the right moments.

 

[The Archangel]

An awful lot of hoops to jump through to define "perish"

The text is clear. God is being patient with us. He is longsuffering. He doesn't want any to perish, but for all to repent. All of this makes NO sense if this is speaking of the elect no matter how much anyone tries to make it fit their theology. Let the plain reading be the plain reading...the elect cannot perish, and to even say He is not wish for any to perish means He is speaking of mankind.

The problem with your interpretation, though, is this: Who is Peter addressing?

Verse 9 has several words that need to be properly understood in context if any good interpretation is to be had.

The Verse (with the key words emboldened): The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise v​as some count slowness, but ​is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but ​that all should reach repentance

YOU: This is referring to the recipients of Peter's letter. This is easily seen in 3:1-2. Also, we know this is the case because Peter address his letter to "To those who have obtained a​a faith of equal standing with ours ​by the righteousness of our ​God and Savior Jesus Christ"

So, it is crystal clear that Peter is addressing believers.

ANY: This is referring to the readers, Christians.

ALL: This too is referring to the readers, Christians.

Furthermore, what is the "promise?" It is found in 3:4--"the promise of His coming." Has God's promise failed? No. Is God slow? In some respect, but not as most people (the people who were claiming that Christ wouldn't come back) think.

Notice, the object of God's patience: YOU. Believers are the object of God's patience.

Also, there is a textual variant in this verse. The word "toward" you is varied in many manuscripts to read "on account of," the difference of εις (toward) and δια (on account of). Ultimately, the meaning does not change as both prepositions (in Greek) address the reader (Christians).

So, it is not the case that this refers to anyone other than Christians. That is the text.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I stand by my statement. If you feel the need to file a law suit on me for libel, so be it. :tongue3:

On two occasions the pastor (Elder) of this Primitive Baptist church said that it did not matter if a person heard the Gospel or not, if they are part of the Elect they are saved!

It seem at least some Calvinist say one thing and do another!

Your statement is false. To doggedly stand by a known falsehood is....well, not smart.

Furthermore, you are making a decision about a whole group of Christians based on a very small sampling. Again, not smart.

So, to make these claims without investigating them thoroughly is to intentionally delude yourself and others. I suspect it is more comfortable for you to believe this falsehood. It makes it easier for you to spit your vitriol at your brothers and sisters who also happen to be Calvinists. That is conduct unbecoming someone calling himself a Christian. Sad.

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Just curious Robert, what did you tell your own home Church concerning your absence when you went in privily to spy out the liberty of the Primitive Baptists?

My church doesn't require me to account of my whereabouts each Sunday. We believe in the Priesthood of the believer.

Another poster here asked if I was afraid to attend a Primitive Baptist church. When I found out one was so close to me I went to see what they were all about.

Did you report back to them? Or did they even miss you? Or do you even have a home Church?

No, I didn't "report" back to them, although I did tell my Pastor and some of the other men what I found. They did not know there was a Primitive Baptist church anywhere around here. And yes, I do have a home church, do you?

but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: 1 Pet 3:15

I cannot argue with Scripture, but I don't see what this has to do with me attending a Primitive Baptist church.

The above passage illustrates the most common way the gospel of Jesus Christ has always been spread down through the ages, with or without organized missions and mission boards. Many times has a door been opened to the word for me on account of someone asking me concerning that hope, and I praise the Lord for that because He placed me in those situations at just the right moments.

If you had failed in this endeavor, it would not matter to the one witnessed to would it? If they were one of who you call the Elect, they would have been saved anyway, regardless of what you did right?

 

[Robert Snow]

Your statement is false. To doggedly stand by a known falsehood is....well, not smart.

Furthermore, you are making a decision about a whole group of Christians based on a very small sampling. Again, not smart.

So, to make these claims without investigating them thoroughly is to intentionally delude yourself and others. I suspect it is more comfortable for you to believe this falsehood. It makes it easier for you to spit your vitriol at your brothers and sisters who also happen to be Calvinists. That is conduct unbecoming someone calling himself a Christian. Sad.

The Archangel

Is it possible for someone who never heard the Gospel to be saved? Can or will you answer this question?

 

[Jarthur001]

As for the group vs. individual thing....I don't think we can eliminate the idea of a group being in Christ.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I agree 100%. A group is indeed in Christ. But you can't say that the group has no individuals.

Take another group. SINNERS. Often time people try to divide the sin from the sinner, but it is the individual sinner that sins. Sin does not stand on its own apart from a human. Without the individual there would be no sinner.

The elect group is made of people that have been elected individually to the group. I just don't think the individual goes away, because you address the larger group as some would have it.

 

[The Archangel]

I agree 100%. A group is indeed in Christ. But you can't say that the group has no individuals.

Take another group. SINNERS. Often time people try to divide the sin from the sinner, but it is the individual sinner that sins. Sin does not stand on its own apart from a human. Without the individual there would be no sinner.

The elect group is made of people that have been elected individually to the group. I just don't think the individual goes away, because you address the larger group as some would have it.

AGREED! It must be understood that the Group is made up of Individuals.

I like the way you analogize this by talking about sinners, I'd never considered that way of analogy before. Thanks!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Is it possible for someone who never heard the Gospel to be saved? Can or will you answer this question?

Can I? Will I? Absolutely.

No, it is not possible for someone who has never heard the Gospel to be saved. In their assertion to the contrary, the Primitive Baptist (and all manner of hyper-Calvinists) are incorrect.

Now, it is not as simple as "hearing" the Gospel. As I've described before, the Gospel is, basically, the match and the regenerated person is the gas-laden fuel. A non-regenerate person would have no fuel and the flame of the match would die out on the cold hearth that is the unregenerate person.

By the way, in proper Calvinist understanding, regeneration is not the same as salvation. Regeneration necessarily leads to salvation but it is through the means of the Gospel being preached (either in written or vocal form).

So, to use the above analogy again, God, in the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, places fuel in the once cold and dead person and the Gospel comes by way of a preacher and the lit match of the Gospel combines with the God-prepared fuel and takes hold and the fire of a believer burns brightly.

But, none of this happens without the Gospel being preached. After all, Paul says, "And how are they to hear without someone preaching?," implying they won't. The Gospel must be preached.

The Archangel

 

[annsni]

I stand by my statement. If you feel the need to file a law suit on me for libel, so be it. :tongue3:

On two occasions the pastor (Elder) of this Primitive Baptist church said that it did not matter if a person heard the Gospel or not, if they are part of the Elect they are saved!

It seem at least some Calvinist say one thing and do another!

So you're going to take one pastor who does not truthfully teach the doctrine of grace as the spokesman for the doctrine. I'd say that's wrong.