Fruits of Calvanism

I have see that exact questioned asked, and answered, more than a few times. Perhaps you should do a search on it?

 

npetreley

You wrote:

I am wondering why you would, in order to win an argument on election, throw away the last point of Calvinism? You know, the Perseverence of the Saints. How can a saved person perish? Surely you don't think that this means physical dead do you?

Adam Clarke writes:

"But is long-suffering— It is not slackness, remissness, nor want of due displacence at sin, that induced God to prolong the respite of ungodly men; but his long-suffering, his unwillingness that any should perish: and therefore he spared them, that they might have additional offers of grace, and be led to repentance — to deplore their sins, implore God’s mercy, and find redemption through the blood of the Lamb.

As God is not willing that any should perish, and as he is willing that all should come to repentance, consequently he has never devised nor decreed the damnation of any man, nor has he rendered it impossible for any soul to be saved, either by necessitating him to do evil, that he might die for it, or refusing him the means of recovery, without which he could not be saved.

Albert Barnes writers:

But is long-suffering to us-ward Toward us. The delay should be regarded as a proof of His forbearance, and of His desire that all human beings should be saved. Every sinner should consider the fact that he is not cut down in his sins, not as a proof that God will not punish the wicked, but as a demonstration that He is now forbearing, and is willing that he should
have an ample opportunity to obtain eternal life. No one should infer that God will not execute His threats, unless he can look into the most distant parts of a coming eternity, and demonstrate that there is no suffering
appointed for the sinner there; anyone who sins, and who is spared even for a moment, should regard the respite as only a proof that God is merciful and forbearing now.

Not willing that any should perish That is, He does not DESIRE it or WISH it. His nature is benevolent, and He sincerely desires the eternal happiness of all, and His patience toward sinners “proves” that He is willing that they should be saved. If He were not willing, it would be easy for Him to cut them off, and exclude them from hope immediately. This passage,
however, should not be adduced to prove:

Even the Calvinists Jamieson, Faussett & Brown agree:

to us-ward — The oldest manuscripts, Vulgate, Syriac, etc. read, “towards
YOU.”

any — not desiring that any, yea, even that the scoffers, should perish, which would be the result if He did not give space for repentance.

come — go and be received to repentance: the Greek implies there is room for their being received to repentance (compare Greek, Mark 2:2
<430837>John 8:37).

I would argue that only hyper-Calvinists interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 as you do. Or one's that are only looking to win a discussion by any means possible.

 

I am wondering why you would, in order to win an argument on election, throw away the last point of Calvinism? You know, the Perseverence of the Saints. How can a saved person perish? Surely you don't think that this means physical dead do you?</font>[/QUOTE]You're really reaching. This is a classic example of taking everything out of context and inventing an argument out of nowhere just to be argumentative. It doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll respond anyway.

Look at the context of the quote. He is explaining why Jesus might not return as quickly as some people think. He is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish, but that all [of us, the elect] come to repentance.

The latter part (come to repentence) shows you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with perserverence of the saints, since they haven't even come to repentence yet. That destroys your entire premise right there.

I'd explain what it means, but I don't think you're interested in learning the truth. I think you just want to make up arguments.

 

Argument? I thought that the term "perish" meant to, well, perish.

Didn't you write:

Aren't you then implying that the elect could perish? I thought that Calvinists taught that anyone already on God's already made up never to be changed exclusive election list could never perish?

If that's true, then doesn't that preclude any possibility for the elect to perish? I mean, why would Peter even bring up such a thing in his epistle?

Of course he wouldn't you see. So then it is obvious that he was speaking of all of the unsaved.

 

Aren't you then implying that the elect could perish? I thought that Calvinists taught that anyone already on God's already made up never to be changed exclusive election list could never perish?

If that's true, then doesn't that preclude any possibility for the elect to perish? I mean, why would Peter even bring up such a thing in his epistle?

Of course he wouldn't you see. So then it is obvious that he was speaking of all of the unsaved. </font>[/QUOTE]He is speaking of the elect that have not yet been called, regenerated and justified. That is why he is delaying the Second Coming. If he is talking about everyone, then the Second Coming would be delayed ad infinitum since there will always be some people on Earth who are not saved. If He is not willing that anyone should perish, then he would never return - automatically condemning millions to hell.

 

By the way, I also think that the "two wills" theory can also explain this verse aptly (referring to the thread on Piper's article on two wills of God).

 

You are obviously being dishonest. You continue to fail to see the distinction between a question being answered to your satisfaction and an answer being given, you will refuse to accept the answer to your question as being true because of your own theological position, you can't admit the answer is right, and so based on this alone, you deny that an answer was given. This is silly and childish. You remind me of a spoiled little kid who puts their fingers in their ears the whole time they are being talked to, who then complains that they did not hear what was said because they had their fingers in their ears.

Blessings,
Ken

 

You are obviously being dishonest. You continue to fail to see the distinction between a question being answered to your satisfaction and an answer being given, you will refuse to accept the answer to your question as being true because of your own theological position, you can't admit the answer is right, and so based on this alone, you deny that an answer was given. This is silly and childish. You remind me of a spoiled little kid who puts their fingers in their ears the whole time they are being talked to, who then complains that they did not hear what was said because they had their fingers in their ears.

Blessings,
Ken </font>[/QUOTE]Me4Him, you should take this above post to heart. It's why many of us find your debating style so grating (that and all the quote marks). It's not grating because we disagree with you, it's precisely because of this dishonest claim that no one gives you answers. You can disagree all you want with our answers, but your pretension really should stop. Please take it to heart.

 

I've seen the fruits of Calvinism! I went to a Reformed website and they sell John Calvin t-shirts!

 

This still makes no sense. Regardless if the elect have YET been called, regenerated, etc....they are still "elect" and WILL NOT perish, making calvinism's definition of 2 Peter 3:9 foolish.

 

What's foolish is your assumption that God works that way - that by virtue of having elected people before the creation of the world, He doesn't care if they're actually born into the world and experience anything in this life. He would be just as happy to poof them into heaven any old time, even if it's a century before they were supposed to have been born into this world.

Obviously, that's not how God works. But you can keep making this stuff up in your desperate attempts to hold onto free willism. If you want to base your soteriology on your imagination and not scripture, that's okay with me.

 

npetreley, you can continue to attack me on every thread, that's fine. It just shows the arrogance and the reaching you have to do to make Scripture fit your theology.

Having said that, what is foolish is your way out there explanation. If you are elect, you will go to Heaven, not "if's", "and's", or "but's". If you have to defend your definition of how calvinism distorts 2 Peter 3:9, fine, but please quit the personal attacks. I will say it again, not based on "my imagination", but common sense the Good Lord gave me...Regardless if the elect have YET been called, regenerated, etc....they are still "elect" and WILL NOT perish, making calvinism's definition of 2 Peter 3:9 foolishness.

 

Webdog, the interpretation that npetreley and I have espoused on these verses is not the only Calvinist intepretation out there. There's also the two wills theory, of which an article by Piper was posted recently. I think there are some others takes, as well.

But I'm still not clear how our take does not make sense. It says that He is not willing that any should perish - of course they don't perish, because He is not willing that they do perish. So this verse isn't saying the elect have the possibility of perishing, but that God wills them not to perish, and thus, they do not perish. Now you're free to disagree that these verses apply only to the elect, but what we are espousing is not contradictory or nonsensical.

Peace.

 

Andy T, that's circular reasoning.

This is what you guys are trying to tell me 2Peter 3:9 is saying... The Lord is not slow in keeping his word, as he seems to some (who are the "some"? The elect?), but he is waiting in mercy for the elect, not desiring the destruction of any of His elect, but that all of the elect may be turned from their evil ways.

However you spin it, it makes no sense.

 

O.k. Webdog, that's fine, we can disagree on this one. I take it that you must hold to a two wills theory on this verse? Because if God is not willing that any should perish and obviously some do perish (as permitted by God's will), then God must have two different aspects to His will. I think that is a reasonable interpretation, one held even by some Calvinists.

Peace.

 

It's not common sense at all. To repeat, you are assuming that God doesn't have any other agenda except to save the elect, and He might as well poof them into heaven right now. This is a man-centered, false, unbiblical assumption. God is making Himself known through His actions over time.

Do you see that part about "bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?" Why would He do such a thing? Why put up with all those objects of wrath? (Or, why is there evil?)

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy?"

Aha. There you have the answer. That's why.

Do you see that God reveals Himself through the outworking of His will on earth? That necessitates that both the non-elect and the elect get born, live and experience God.

Obviously, God's plan isn't limited to sending His elect to heaven, otherwise I'd have to agree with you -- why not just poof them there and be done with it? But IMO, that's so silly I can't imagine why anyone would think that way.