God wants all men to be saved

This is a very good observation, as in context, the Lord is talking too and about His own to get saved, the Elect!

 

No, it is not! It is complete nonsense for Peter to say that "God is unwilling for the elect" not to perish, when they CANNOT! Why say what is not possible? The context is to the "mockers and scoffers", which is included in the correct text with YOU and not US!

 

Peter was addressing those who wwere to get saved before the Second Coming, so he was indeed speaking towards the elect to get saved,not to all sinners in general!

 

Again, you are attempting to see the elect as possibly loosing the eternal abode prepared for them.

That isn't the focus.

The focus from the opening is why the Lord is delayed in returning.

The focus is that despite the mocking and scorn, the traumas and deaths that the church was facing, God was not "slack" as to the fulfillment of the promise.

The focus then shifts to WHY the delay.

The focus is expressed in terms that the delay is because there are yet folks to be saved, those not yet born who are also of the elect, those of future generations who will also be saved.

The focus is that God is not willing for ANY of the elect to perish before He calls for judgment, but when the last of the elect are bought from slavery, taken off the market of being able to be sold as a slave and adopted as heir, then judgement does come.

That is the proper rendering of the passage. None other makes sense and is a departure from the truth expressed by Peter.

The "us" can not ever include the unsaved, or Paul would be stating (for he was part of the "us") that he was unsaved.

The "us" is a pronoun which informally means "me" and also means one or more of a people or group in which the "me" is a member.

There is never a time "us" means you all excluding the "me," nor a time the "us" can be used as "them."

That holds true (Imo) for both English and Greek.

 

Not to disagree, but one thing for certain, all cannot mean all sinners, or else we are stuck with a God wanting to save all, but powerless to do that !

 

No need to have Greek for this passage, as proper English gives to us the right theology!

 

So, WHY would he tell the elect, who could never be lost, that God did not "will that any of THEM perish"? these words are completely pointless if addressed to the elect! Please explain their use

 

He was addressing that NOT towards the already saved at his time, but all of those to be saved before Second Coming!

 

Thank you.

Is this better?:

but will be efficient only for those who believe.

 

" That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life." (Commentary on John)

Note the words that I have made bold. Language that no "Calvinist" would use for this verse! "all men without exception", which hardly "Calvinistic" language, which is "without distinction"! Then on Mark 14:24, " Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race". IF, as some suppose, that this "Limited Atonement" as part of the 5 Points (T.U.L.I.P.), is from John Calvin's teachings, then he could never have written these words on Mark 14:24. Note the careful language, "not part of the world", which is exactly what Limited Atonement teaches, that only a "part", that is, "the elect", is who Christ died for. No, says Calvin, "the WHOLE human race", is included in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ! AMEN!!!. One more example from Calvin. Colossians 1:14, " He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated". Dr R T Kendall (among other Calvinists, like Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, John Newton, John Brown, and others), believed and taught that Jesus Christ died for the WHOLE WORLD WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Writing on the term "world" in John 3:16, which many Calvinists take to mean "elect", Dr Robert Dabney, himself a Calvinist, says, "But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In Jno. iii.16, make 'the world' which Christ loved, to mean 'the elect world', and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish" (Systematic Theology, page 525). Dr Dabney is addressing the passages where terms like "all", etc can have limited meanings, as we as what it actually says. Clearly to the "candid" mind, no limit can be placed on "the world", for which Jesus Christ loved, and died!

In Luke's account of the Lord's Supper, we read the following,

"Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table" (22:20-21)

The word "you" is in the plural number, which would include Judas, who also partook of the cup which represented Jesus "blood" shed for the sins also of Judas on the cross. There are some who argue that Judas was not present for the Lord's Supper, but only for the Passover meal. I quote from two prominent Calvinistic commentator's, on this passage.

"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over" (John Gill)

"it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord's supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. There have been those that have eaten bread with Christ and yet have betrayed him" (Matthew Henry)

It should be observed, that the timing of the institution of the Lord's Supper is very important. Jesus makes sure that Judas, then one who would betray Him, was also present when He addressed His words, "My blood which is shed for YOU", which without any doubt included Judas. Had Jesus' death not been also for Judas, and those who are not of the so-called "elect", then surely Jesus would have waited for Judas to have left the room, which he did not much later, and then instituted the Lord's Supper, which included Jesus' words for whom this was intended.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows the heart of the God of the Holy Bible. For we read in places like Ezekiel 18:21-23,

“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?"

It is abundantly clear that the Lord does NOT desire any of the wicked lost to go to hell, as some who profess Jesus Christ do!

 

What a lame argument! Surely God HATES sin, which is in this world, and yet He does not remove it or destroy the devil, who is the cause of it? Does this make God "powerless" because what He hates He does not remove? NO! You guys have done away with FREE WILL, for all sinners to "CHOOSE this day whom they will serve" (Joshua 24:15), which would be quite pointless it they could not CHOOSE!

 

Adam did away with free will when he choose to Fall, so where did free will get him and now us?

 

quit trying to label and lump.

Would it not be inappropriate to label you Pelagian because you think that one has the free will to accept or reject salvation?

Rather, use the Scriptures and stick with them in presenting the truth, for in them is that strength, alone.

 

He did not die for all sinners to get saved, as all would then be saved!

 

The desire of God is not the same as His will is it?

 

Joshua 24 is after the fall, and clearly people were asked to CHOOSE, something only possible if they had FREE WILL!

 

Did the Apostle choose jesus, or did he first choose them?