-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does this indicate a choice?
- Thread starter mets65
- Start date
- Status
slave 4 Christ
New Member
What is your evidence for the above accusations?
Also, how is your accusation any less "junk talking" and "fight starting"?
Surely you have something better to do than the above post.
Where do you want to start?
The majority of his posts have an insult torwards a member. Yes, I could be working right now I suppose, but I'm on lunch.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Jbh28,
I suppose you know what I'm going to write. This is not directed at you, but your question has provided a vehicle to address the passages in question.
The problem with the "all" of the passages usually quoted (2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4) is that "all" is not and cannot be everyone without exception.
These two verses are usually ripped from their context and "all" is gerrymandered to mean "everyone without exception" without any consideration of what Peter or Paul, respectively, intended the "all" to mean.
Look at 2 Peter 3:9:
[9] The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
(2 Peter 3:9 ESV)
The key phrase here is: but is patient toward you. Who is the "you?" In 2 Peter 3:1, it is clear that Peter is addressing the ones to whom he addressed the letter--To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
(2 Peter 1:1 ESV). So, Peter is addressing Christians.
The "you" of 2 Peter 3:9 is to Christians. God is not willing that any of the Christians should perish, but that all to reach repentance. Now, whatever that means, it is certainly not "all" being every person without exception.
Look at 1 Timothy 2:
[2:1] First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, [2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. [3] This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. [7] For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
(1 Timothy 2:1-7 ESV)
Prayers are to be made for "all people." Again, who are the "all?" Is it qualified here? Yes. Prayers are to be made for kings, emperors, etc.--all who are in high positions. Obviously, the kings here are not Jewish Kings, but Gentile Kings--like the Roman Emperor.
It is important to note that Paul is writing to Timothy who is in Ephesus. Ephesus, if one reads the letter, had a problem with divisions between the Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11-22). Furthermore, if the church in Ephesus was being threatened by Judiasers (as is suggested by 1 Timothy 1:3-7) it is very likely that the Judiasers were preaching a Jewish superiority (as they were known to do in the preaching of the Law being prominent, over and above Grace).
So, the "all" that Paul is using here is referring to Gentile kings and to Gentiles in general. So, the "all" here means that God is not wanting only to save Jews--He is wanting to save both Jews and Gentiles. This is precisely why in 1 Timothy 2:5-7 Paul describes himself as a teacher of the Gentiles. But we also see this expressed in verse 5 where Paul says that there is one mediator between God and men--Jesus, which is very reminiscent of Ephesians 2:11-22. The "ransom," then, being for "all," is to say that salvation is available for Jews and Gentiles, not Jews alone.
So, in both these cases, "all" does not mean everyone without exception.
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator:
You are defining ALL on your terms, based on your theology, according to your rose-colored glasses which you are looking through. You are the one that is looking at this verse (and the one in Timothy) without carefully looking at the context. Consider again the context.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (2 Peter 3:3)
--believers? no. scoffers walking after their own lusts.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (2 Peter 3:5)
--those that are ignorant.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
--In contrast to the scoffers and the ignorant God is patient to us, and not willing that any of them, (scoffers and the ignorant) should perish. He is not willing that ANY should perish.
To add (the elect) is to add to the Word of God, a sin that God speaks about many times in Scripture.
The following verse to add to the context, verse 10:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)
Both the believers and ignorant should know this:
1. Christ is coming soon.
2. His coming is imminent; sudden--as a thief in the night.
3. This earth shall pass away, and be burned up.
4. This verse goes right back up to the context given in verse 7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:7)
--Ungodly men should know that this earth is going to pass away. But they are ignorant of it. And yet a merciful God is not willing that any one of them should perish.
--All people; a general representation of every strata of society, including and especially society. He emphasizes ALL. How can you miss this?
This is not proved by either of these verses. All means all. You cannot insert elect in either of these verses, especially in 1Tim.2:4 as it directly includes those who are not elect.
Again context:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; (1 Timothy 2:1)
--The very first verse says ALL men. How can you miss this?
Then in verse two he mentions those that are in authority as one class that they should especially pray for. Read 1 Peter. They would not normally pray for a man like Nero would be persecuting them. But Paul urges them to do so, that they may live peaceably.
And then the reason:
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)
--What a trophy of grace it would be if Nero or some of the other leaders came to salvation. God will that all men will be saved. But all men have a choice and all men will not be saved for God will not force them, and they have depraved and wicked hearts that rebel against God. That does not negate God's will that all would be saved.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
--He didn't give himself a ransom for the elect. That is not what it says. He gave himself a ransom for all men. All men are included in both verses. Unless you add to the Word of God, you can draw no other conclusion.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
This is not the case. It is, actually, you who are defining "all" on your own terms through your theology. The "all" of 2 Peter 3:9 is simple grammar. Even consider the textual variant that translates "but is patient toward you" as "but is patient on your account." This shows that the early manuscript copiers understood this verse to be referring to believers.
Furthermore, you consistently rip "all" from its individual contexts to make it seem to say everyone without exception, but it only seems to say that.
All is always a qualified word. This is a simple fact of both English grammar and Greek grammar--but it is more so in Greek.
The key to "all" in this verse is the unusual "you," as in "but is patient toward you" The phrase "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" is a dependent clause; it doesn't stand by itself. Therefore the "all" in the clause is qualified by the previous phrase--But is patient toward you." Toward you acts as a qualifying bridge between "[God] is patient" and "not wishing..." The qualifier is the "you." Who is the "you?" The "you" are the recipients of Peter's letter--Christians. Who is God being patient towards? Christians. Who is He not wishing to perish? Christians. Who is He wanting to reach repentance? Christians.
This is what the text actually says.
This is laughable.
If you'd read 2 Peter 3:1, Peter addresses the "you" as "beloved." He is obviously addressing Christians.
When we get to the verse you quote, he has already reminded them that they should heed the words of the prophets and the commandments of Christ. He is "stirring them up" to watch out for scoffers--scoffers who will deny that Christ is going to return.
Make no mistake, the address is to believers. You can't rip one verse out of context simply because the word "scoffers" is present.
The scoffers are the ignorant ones...but Peter is still in the midst of warning the believers about the coming scoffers.
I'm not adding "elect" to anything. Peter is simply addressing believers.
Now, the Greek of verse 9 does not and cannot relate back to verse 3.
First of all, the "you" of address that has already been shown above is not the "scoffers." The "you" is the believers--unless you have Peter addressing the entire church as scoffers which he is clearly not doing.
Second, verse 9 is some 3 entire sentences removed from v. 3. You are attempting to make a connection where no grammatical connection exists and you are, thereby, doing violence to the text.
Both believers and non-believers should, in fact, know this. However, this verse--while similar to v. 7--shows no grammatical connection. It is removed by 3 sentences.
This is simply incompatible with the grammar of the passage.
Even your own quote here does not mean all without exception. How can you miss that? What is more, in the Bible, if we want to see "all men," meaning without exception we see the word for all qualified by the word for men. We do not see that at any point in this passage.
We'll deal with 1 Timothy 2:4 when and if we finish with this.
The Archangel
You have not been on here long enough to observe the issues between us.
I am purposefully hard on about four members. Webdog and Snow are the two main ones.
If one will be civil and not smart alek in talking to me he can expect respect from me.
That does not mean I am not going be frank- but I will be respectful.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Archangel, your explanation is nonsense. Why would God need to be longsuffering toward a believer? It is impossible that they can perish, so your explanation makes no sense.
And why would he say he desires a saved person to come to repentance? They have already come to repentance, or else they would not be brethren.
Archangel, your explanation is nonsense. Why would God need to be longsuffering toward a believer? It is impossible that they can perish, so your explanation makes no sense.
And why would he say he desires a saved person to come to repentance? They have already come to repentance, or else they would not be brethren.
God is longsuffering to all his people in all generation not willing that any of his people in any generation should perish but that all of them should come to repentance and be saved.
God was not willing that I should perish when I was lost because he elected me. So he was longsuffering toward me in my sin and rebellion, not willing that I should perish but willing that I should come to repentance.
Thank God His will is ALWAYS done!
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
If you knew the context into which Peter was writing--even as he gives us a glimpse of the "scoffers" in the church--it is easy to see that he is concerned that the believers in the church persevere to the end. And, for some of them, it is apparently a good thing that God had not returned yet because some of them had begun to follow false doctrine which, in the end, would make a shipwreck of their faith.
Peter is concerned that they are being obedient, which many were not being.
In our church, there are people who I doubt are, in fact, Christians. Even though they are members of our church--and therefore are apparently Christians--I am very concerned that they leave the error of their ways and turn to Christ in repentance. This is exactly what is going on in the church Peter is addressing.
The Archangel
I agree with you on the definition of "will." The term "will" here is not decretive will but desire. Words have multiple meanings. Her's the point that I'm trying to make.
If God desires that all men be saved(which I would agree with btw, as would Spurgeon), then why are all men not saved.
Here are your options.
1. All men are actually saved (universalism) - neither of us believe that
2. God is unable to save all men. - neither of us believe that.
3. There is another desire that God has that is more than just saving all men. - I think we would both agree with that, though we may disagree on what that desire is exactly.
The reason I brought this up is because somebody asked why God wouldn't elect all if he desires all to be saved. My response is that there is a greater desire to God than saving all men, as would anybody else's response would be. The only other options is that God is weak and cannot save all or that He will save all. And since I don't think any of us here believe those two things, then we are left with option 3 above, unless someone can come up with another option.
Last edited by a moderator:
no problem either way. I enjoy civil discussions even among those that may disagree with me.
I do understand the all without exception vs all without distinction. Here's something to think about. Why would Christians need to come to repentance? They already have. You said that he is addressing Christians. Could it mean that God is not willing that any of the elect perish but all the elect come to repentance? If so, we do have already an extension to just the particular people.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think this is as big of an issue as it seems to make. I believe that there is a greater desire of God that is in play here. God has said that he hates evil.
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Psalms 5:4
"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you."
evil may not dwell with you."
Psalms 45:6-7
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
So if God hates evil, then why does evil exist? I say that there is another desire that is greater than the desire to not have evil in the world.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
:applause:
What does God desire more than merely making rocks cry out...or effectually causing all some people to want to love and worship him?
Why don't we look at what HE SAYS:
John 4:23:
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him
John 20:
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
Heb. 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I think it is possible--given the context into which Peter was writing--that there were persons in this church who were not true Christians, or at least those who were true Christians who were in error and thus seemingly in danger of judgment.
So, yes, I'd agree with what you said. When one considers what the reformers said and what the Bible shows--the elect may fall into sin, even gross sin, but they will always come back--it is likely that Peter is addressing this very thing. God had delayed His return so that those who had fallen into sin would not be left outside the kingdom, but would be given opportunity to repent.
Again, I think we are to understand "repentance" as a both a one-time thing and a daily, ongoing thing.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Given opportunity to repent?
Does that type of verbiage really work in the Calvinistic system, since the only "opportunity" is the effectual response to the regenerative work of God?
Why does God express patience and long-suffering toward the lost when He is the one who does everything? Is he waiting on Himself?
Does that type of verbiage really work in the Calvinistic system, since the only "opportunity" is the effectual response to the regenerative work of God?
Why does God express patience and long-suffering toward the lost when He is the one who does everything? Is he waiting on Himself?
Excuse me....but didnt you say you were a Calvinist? It just seems odd that you would make such a statement. Perhaps your confusing us with the Hyper Calvinist type. Perhaps thats it.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, but having been a Calvinist doesn't mean I can't inquire about the weakness of my former position even if I might be familiar with how some Calvinists might answer the question.
Why don't you answer the question? What is God waiting on in his expressions of patience and long-suffering toward the lost?
And don't you think verbiage of "giving someone an opportunity to repent" is less than Calvinistic considering that the "opportunity" is an effectual response only given to a select few?
Opportunity is defined as: "possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances"
How is that consistent with the Calvinistic position?
That's a difference I believe between and extreme hyper calvinistic view and a calvinistic view. The former denies man's responsibility.
- Status