Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[BaptistBob]

God didn't send Jesus to condemn the world and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world that the whole world MIGHT BE saved, not willing any perish.

"IF" God isn't "TRUE to his words, the neither you, I or anyone else can be "CERTAIN" we'll be resurrected or have eternal life.

The pendulum swings both way.

What's the point in hardening someone who is already on their way to hell,

Why would they have to be harden more before making the trip???

Get off the milk bottle, try eating a little meat of the word. :thumbs:

Actually, the "hardening" of the Jews of Paul's time was for their salvation. Paul makes that crystal clear.

The "hardening" was done by handing them over to their own desires. Then God let the Gentiles in to partake of Israel's inheritance to make them (the Jews) jealous, thereby saving some of them.

This was God's plan to save them all along, and they had no idea. "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

The book of Romans is a fantastic book. Let the exegesis begin!!

 

[RAdam]

People have trouble with the invitations in scripture, but really they shouldn't. Who is invited? Well, in Matthew 11:28 it is those that labor and are heavy laden. In Isaiah 55 it is all ye that thirst. Those that have been made sensible of their sins by the Holy Spirit and are now mourning over them, and are hungering and thirsting after righteousness are invited to come and dine. Their reward? Timely blessings such as rest, being filled, being comforted, and having close communion with their Savior.

People point to the Gospel being the means by which a sinner is called. For one thing, that would of necessity require that every elect child of God had heard the Gospel. Sadly some haven't heard the Gospel, but they have heard the voice of God speaking to their hearts effectually calling them to life. Here's a good section of scripture to prove that the calling is of God and not through the Gospel. In 1 Cor. 1:18 Paul says the the Gospel call, the preaching of the cross, is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. In verse 23 he says that "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Unto them which are called the preaching of Christ crucified, the gospel call, is power and wisdom. You get that? Unto them which are called is the gospel call power. They had to first be called by a different call before the gospel had power. How were they called? By God. Then Christ was wisdom and power. In verse 30 Paul says that God made Christ wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption unto us. Who is the us? The us which are saved, them which are called, unto whom the gospel comes not in word only but in power, in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.

 

[RAdam]

Why was Pharoah hardened?

 

[BaptistBob]

You keep saying that God is "not willing that any should perish." I've already addressed that text and shown you that in context, Peter is talking about the elect and not every single person in existence.

No, the word play suggests he is talking about the scoffers. "Some" and "anyone" are the same word in the Greek. The "some" within the church are scoffing unbeleivers, and God isn't willing that "any" perish. The Greek ear hears the same word both times and makes the connection.

The fact that the opening of the book suggests that book is addressed to the believers doesn't touch my point. Among them are scoffers. By extension, the verse applies to all, with emphasis on scoffers.

They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.........9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

 

[RAdam]

2 Peter 3:8-9 - "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repetence.

First, he is talking to the "beloved", not the scoffers, telling them not to worry about what the scoffers are saying. The scoffers are mocking the Lord by asking, "where is the promise of his coming." Peter is saying don't be dismayed that it has been a long time since Jesus ascended because time has no meaning to God, using the illustration that one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day to God. Then Peter continues to comfort the "beloved" by telling them that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness but is longsuffering to usward. To who? Toward us. Who is the us? Beloved, those who Peter addressed in verse 8, those to whom he directed both this and his first epistle in verse 1 of this chapter. A quick trip back over to 1 Peter 1:2 reveals that he addressed that epistle and, as we've before proved, this one as well to the elect. Who is God longsuffering towards? Us, the beloved, the elect. Peter then points to the reason for God's longsuffering toward us - he's not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repetence. The any and all there must, then, be talking about us and not every single person in existence. What sense would it make for Him to be longsuffering toward us, yet holding out for the scoffers? Wouldn't have Peter said He is longsuffering toward them in that case?

Here's yet another case where people ignore the clear reading in english in favor of the greek. There's nothing wrong with going to the greek, but if the english is clear, what need have we to go to the greek?

 

[BaptistBob]

Here's yet another case where people ignore the clear reading in english in favor of the greek. There's nothing wrong with going to the greek, but if the english is clear, what need have we to go to the greek?

It is very clear. Keep in mind that Peter is concerned that the "beloved" will be carried away by the error of the scoffers. Christ's slowness, however, should be viewed by the beloved as part of his plan to save the unrepentant scoffers.

In this way Peter turns the strength of the scoffers' argument into a weakness for their argument. In turn, it becomes a strong argument and encouragement for the beloved.

The "some/scoffers" are the "anyone" that Christ is taking his time for. He's waiting for them to repent. The verse has the same tone as Romans 2:4.

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

This was a common theme in the Second Temple period Jewish literature.

 

[BaptistBob]

Oh yeah, one more thing..............

2 Peter 3:8-9 - "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repetence.

"usward" is not in the original text. The oldest manuscripts and translations based upon them do not have the word. The issue is hardly disputed.

 

[RAdam]

Look at the wording of those texts. The only way you can misunderstand this is if you try. If you simply look at the structuring of the english the any and all must be the beloved, not the scoffers. The only way you can not see that is if you willfully yank that text around to fit your theology.

Peter says God is longsuffering to usward. You get that. The object of His longsuffering is us, in context the beloved, the elect. What is the reason for His longsuffering? He's not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentence. Since the object of His longsuffering is us, the beloved, the elect, and not the scoffers, the object of the reason for His longsuffering (the any and all) must also be us, the beloved, the elect. That's the only solution one can come to given the structure of the english. To deny this is to deny basic english and to wrest the scriptures.

 

[BaptistBob]

Peter says God is longsuffering to usward. You get that.

Sorry, we posted at nearly the same time, so I don't think you saw my last post. I already addressed that.

"usward" is not in the text.

 

[RAdam]

First of all, you don't know what was in the original text since you haven't ever seen it. Neither have I. Secondly, this word is in the greek used to translate the bible. It's the word hemas, Strong's number G2248. The word "to" (G1519 eis) is in there too. This word is twice, along with eis, rendered to usward. The word itself appears 178 times in the NT.

As to other translations of the scripture in english - NKJV: "to us"; NIV: "with you"; ESV: "with you"; NASB: "with you"

 

[BaptistBob]

First of all, you don't know what was in the original text since you haven't ever seen it. Neither have I. Secondly, this word is in the greek. It's the word hemas, Strong's number G2248. The word "to" (G1519 eis) is in there too. This word is twice, along with eis, rendered to usward. The word itself appears 178 times in the NT.

As to other translations of the scripture in english - NKJV: "to us"; NIV: "with you"; ESV: "with you"; NASB: "with you"

It is not in the oldest manuscripts. It is in the newer ones. It is almost universally rejected today, so the meaning of a word not in the text is of no concern to me any more than Gnostic writings of 300 AD.

"with you" is acceptable, since it actually IS in the text. But it supports my point that there are scoffers in the congregation.

 

[RAdam]

In other words, you'd rather just ignore what the bible says, virtually all translations I've seen, because it doesn't fit with your theology? That's a sad view. Whether one holds to the TR or not, the fact is translations that use both strains of manuscripts have a qualifying object in there, "usward", "us," or "you". Might as well give up that english bible and just use your greek manuscripts.

Now, to say that words that do not appear in the greek should be ignored is to just take an extreme view of scripture. How about Romans 5:18 where the words "judgement came" and "the free gift came" are both added by the translators. If we care not for what those words mean then the tex would read thus, "therefore as by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one upon all men unto justification of life." What came by the offence of one upon all men to condemnation? What came by the rightoeusness of one upon all men unto justification of life? You'd say, "I don't care" and equate them to gnostic writings.

There are many more examples which I could give. It's sad when someone is so offended by the wording of the bible that they basically throw it out in favor of their own "version" in their own mind.

 

[BaptistBob]

In other words, you'd rather just ignore what the bible says, virtually all translations I've seen, because it doesn't fit with your theology? That's a sad view. Whether one holds to the TR or not, the fact is translations that use both strains of manuscripts have a qualifying object in there, "usward", "us," or "you". Might as well give up that english bible and just use your greek manuscripts.

See my last post, since in it I mentioned that "you" IS in the text. "usward" is not.

Let me cut to the chase, since I have to get to work. Peter describes the scoffers with words that suggest that they are in the congregation, but also seems to think that there is little or no chance they will repent. Therefore, they are there when the letter is read, orally (which is how it was done at the time). Peter writes to the beloved with the knowledge that the "you" hearing it includes all sorts of people.

Hence the chapter 2 begins with: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you."

"You" is the congregation, werein the scoffers in need of repentance reside. The letter is written to the beloved to help them with this problem.

 

[RAdam]

The chapter doesn't begin that way, the second chapter does. The third chapter, of which we are concerned, is written thus: "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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 the creation. For this they are willingly 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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 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 repentence. 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 a fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with a fervent heat? Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for a new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

Notice a few things that contradict your view. First, Peter says that "we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth." According to what promise? The promise of His coming. The we here, aren't questioning His promise as the scoffers are. Next, notice that Peter tells them to "account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation." He didn't say it might possibly be salvation if they do this or that, he said account that it is salvation. Those to whom God is longsuffering towards shall be saved. He also warns the beloved not to be led away by the error of the wicked, namely the scoffers mocking the promise of His coming.

The whole discussion here is the end times and the question of why hasn't Christ come back yet. Well, why hasn't He? Is He slack? The scoffers say so. But Peters says no, absolutely not. He's not slack, as they count slackness, but is rather longsuffering toward us. Why? He's not willing for any of us to be lost eternally. All the commands, exhortations, warnings, and instruction is directed at who? The scoffers? No, the beloved, of which Peter counts himself. Basically, you want it to read that God is waiting around for the scoffers to accept Him, so you wrest it to say that, even leaving the clear english that is contained in all translations I've seen.

 

[yshwa4life]

i wish i had the option to edit posts for a bit longer because upon further reflection of my blog i've made a few changes. Here's the paragraph that i edited.

i just can't seem to get over all of the places in scripture that talk about our responsibility to yield to Him. It's God that draws by His Spirit "of course" but it's humans who either "reject" or "receive" His free gift by faith..we're corrupt from birth and in desperate need, totally depraved (doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result), devoid of any true knowledge of God and holiness with a will that is bent away from our Creator..but to say that we're totally "unable" to respond in any way shape or form? That it's simply the will of God to arbitrarily choose some and leave others to die in their sin and spend eternity in hell? i just don't see that taught in scripture.."in context" with respect to the call to.."believe" and "receive". Christ came to reveal the loving nature of God.

Isaiah 52:7 (ASV)

7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

..any thoughts? ..'cause i'm really trying to gain a thorough understanding of this argument.

 

[BaptistBob]

The chapter doesn't begin that way, the second chapter does.

That's what my post says. That's what "2" means.

Notice a few things that contradict your view. First, Peter says that "we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth." According to what promise? The promise of His coming. The we here, aren't questioning His promise as the scoffers are.

Of course not. That's my point.

Next, notice that Peter tells them to "account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation." He didn't say it might possibly be salvation if they do this or that, he said account that it is salvation.

Actually, he says to "consider" or "deem" it salvation (try a translation that isn't so much of a paraphrase). In other words, "Look at it this way, rather than the way the scoffers do." The point being that they should turn the negative into a positive point for their argument.

The whole discussion here is the end times and the question of why hasn't Christ come back yet. Well, why hasn't He? Is He slack? The scoffers say so. But Peters says no, absolutely not. He's not slack, as they count slackness, but is rather longsuffering toward us. Why? He's not willing for any of us to be lost eternally. All the commands, exhortations, warnings, and instruction is directed at who? The scoffers? No, the beloved, of which Peter counts himself.

Yeah, like there's the slightest chance that those who have already repented and are "firmly established (1:12) need to repent. :laugh:

Basically, you want it to read that God is waiting around for the scoffers to accept Him, so you wrest it to say that, even leaving the clear english that is contained in all translations I've seen.

I've addressed this already. It is a false and bankrupt argument (see my previous responses). All you are doing now is posturing.

Kinda boring.....


Thanks for the discussion.

 

[RAdam]

You haven't addressed anything. Again, every single command, exhortation, warning, and instruction - who are they aimed at? The scoffers? Are they warned not to fall into the error of the wicked? Of course not, it's their error. Are they exhorted to live godly knowing that the day of God is coming? No, they don't believe the day of God is coming. How then, if the whole chapter is written to the beloved and aimed at reassuring them and strengthening their already existent belief in the second coming of Jesus Christ, do you place the emphasis on the lost? I suggest that it is because the view you advocate is errant.

How am I posturing? I've brought up clear english evidence, based upon the structuring of the actual sentence from which our argument stems, and an overview of the entire chapter in question, that Peter is addressing the beloved and trying to warn them (and us) about the scoffers who will question the coming of our Lord and strengthen our already existent beliefs of this sure event. To stop in the middle of this chapter and make Peter's intention out to be that God is patiently waiting for these scoffers, whom are not among the beloved (elect) to come to Him, is to wrest this chapter, much less that particular text, around in an almost incredible manner. On top of this, rather than actually confront the obvious problems with your stance on this text, you write off words that aren't in the original manuscripts (though you nor I know what was in the originals) and equate them to gnostic writings, meanwhile accusing me of posturing. You've yet to prove one of my arguments false or address context or the english wording.

 

[Me4Him]

You keep saying that God is "not willing that any should perish." I've already addressed that text and shown you that in context, Peter is talking about the elect and not every single person in existence.

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


"Should come" is not past or present, it's "FUTURE".

And "ALL" means "ALL".

 

[Me4Him]

i just can't seem to get over all of the places in scripture that talk about our responsibility to yield to Him. It's God that draws by His Spirit "of course" but it's humans who either "reject" or "receive" His free gift by faith..we're corrupt from birth and in desperate need, totally depraved (doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result), devoid of any true knowledge of God and holiness with a will that is bent away from our Creator..but to say that we're totally "unable" to respond in any way shape or form? That it's simply the will of God to arbitrarily choose some and leave others to die in their sin and spend eternity in hell? i just don't see that taught in scripture.."in context" with respect to the call to.."believe" and "receive". Christ came to reveal the loving nature of God.


..any thoughts? ..'cause i'm really trying to gain a thorough understanding of this argument.

Ac 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

2Ch 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;

whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Eze 33:11 Say unto them,...As I live......saith the Lord GOD,...... I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;

but that the wicked turn from his way and live:

turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 

[BaptistBob]

You haven't addressed anything. Again, every single command, exhortation, warning, and instruction - who are they aimed at? The scoffers? Are they warned not to fall into the error of the wicked?

So? I said that Peter is giving his audience an argument against those who will oppose them. Why is Christ taking so long? So that the unrepentant can repent.

There is no need for the "firmly established" (1:12) to repent. They already have. All they need do is endure.

To stop in the middle of this chapter and make Peter's intention out to be that God is patiently waiting for these scoffers, whom are not among the beloved (elect) to come to Him, is to wrest this chapter, much less that particular text, around in an almost incredible manner. On top of this, rather than actually confront the obvious problems with your stance on this text, you write off words that aren't in the original manuscripts (though you nor I know what was in the originals) and equate them to gnostic writings, meanwhile accusing me of posturing. You've yet to prove one of my arguments false or address context or the english wording.

First of all, Peter doesn't "stop in the middle." This is part of the entire letter which addresses the situation involving the scoffers. Peter is simply giving and explanation to counter the position of the scoffers. It makes total sense to do so.

As for your complaints about manuscripts, you are welcome to use any manuscript you like. I'm sure there are some being written right now that will have useful information that will aid your argument. But as for me and my house (and most of the rest of Christian humanity), the older texts are considered more reliable. Other than that, you are also using a translation (whatever it may be) that involves a paraphrase at one point, so it glosses over an important point, which I pointed out. (I hate it when I say "point" too much.)