2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

[Rolf Ernst]

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:9

This verse is used by many to claim that the Reformed (Calvinistic) view of Scripture is not Biblical; but to the contrary, when it is fully considered, it proves that Calvinism is Scriptural and that the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture is not Biblical.

Chapters two and three show Peter's concern about false teachings. In the second chapter he uses examples to show that God is able to punish or reward all according to their deeds. In the third chapter he deals with one error in particular. Unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter's response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: "see, He is not willing that any individual of mankind perish. He wants all (every--each and every) to come to repentance." My, my. We do have a problem here. If He is delaying that coming in judgment because He doesnt want any in the Arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self-defeating because the fact is that every day in every age, the broad road which leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road which leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die. Therefore the Arminian understanding of why God has not yet returned in judgement shows the motive of His longsuffering to be self-defeating.

The Reformed view does not at all see God's longsuffering as self-defeating. It views God's longsuffering as performing exactly what He purposed in it. Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to usward: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His seed whom He would see (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is the "Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace" should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL come to repentance, no matter how many of the non-elect perish.

And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in verse 15, "consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."

The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view.

[Clete]

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[God_Is_Truth]

wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12898) :first:

[Knight]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum? Yes.... I will move it.

[Leo Volont]

Look at the format Peter is using.

He is not presenting Revelation from God like some Great Prophet. He is making quasi-rationalist arguments, just like you or me or anybody else. So why are you putting so much weight on it? Anybody who argues is tacitly admitting the possibility of error. When Peter is thrashing about trying to explain why Jesus was wrong about the Second Coming, he is only guessing and hoping for the best. He doesn't tell us that any Angel came to him and told him this or that. He reaches into his scripture bag and starts quoting this and that, just like you would do. But you don't think you are right do you? So how can you think Peter was right?

By the way, when was 2nd Peter written? Peter was martyred before the Sack of Jerusalem, wasn't he? Peter did not wait long enough before complaining. The World did end. The Second Coming did occur. The Sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. tied up all the loose ends of the Age of the Patriarches. John was the only Apostolic survivor, I believe, which, again, fits into what Christ Himself had prophecized. We would have known more about the Second Coming, except that it was an extremely bloody affair and had no surviving witnesses.

The misunderstandings we have today source out of the mistaken notion that we are still living in the Dispensation of the Patriarchs of which the coming of Christ was the culmination. That is all over. We are now living it what has obviously been the Dispensation of Mary. for the last several thousand years all Grace from God has been through Mary. There is certainly no other evidence to the contrary, while we have reports of thousands of Intercessions of Our Lady. This had been common knowledge, up until the 15th Century, but after the Protestant/Satanic Victory over the Church of the Marian Dispensation, all spiritual information has been largely swept away, and a populous educated in secular atheist schools are surprised to find Mary mentioned at all.

Anyway, in less then 10 years I suspect that the Age of Mary will come to its End and we will see a new Age of the Holy Spirit. There have been numerous prophecies that point in this direction. Pieces of the puzzle all form the same picture. I myself even gathered a piece. The other night I was swirled up to Heaven by a Spiritual Vortex and when I again set foot on earth I had a phrase planted on my tongue. "Hail Mary full of Grace, World Lifter". I had become aware that I was in a dream and started reciting the "Hail Mary" -- but after I passed through heaven the words had changed. The World is about to be 'lifted' up. Notice, I make no silly Petereque arguments which might or might not be wrong. I present the Words from Heaven.

[1Way]

Excellent Knight and Clete!

You "can" find support for slavery and hating those we should love in the bible if we are determined to find it there. An objective review of God's word denies the closed view as being too extreme. All that needs be done to correct the immutability of God is to make it conform to (all of) scripture, and not according to a few isolated out of context misinterpretations.

God says things sometimes in very indirect perhaps confounding ways. For example.
Pr 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. :o
Why does God use indirect and somewhat shaded thought provoking messages? Perhaps it’s because of the beauty of a caring meaningful righteous relationship where if you care about the truth of the matter, you will naturally seek out to understand it beyond the superficial. Stay on the same page as the writer, if you are wise, you will take in all of God’s word very carefully prior to pretending to know some particular issue. Consider Pr 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings [is] to search out a matter. Then it is easier to understand that God really does want the world to search for Him and seek Him out, and to not judge by outward appearance. Ac 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." So when God says that He does not change, and then demonstrates and teaches very consistently that he does in deed change and does not know the entire future as one unchangeable outcome, then we have to dig a little deeper to get the right understanding of what God means whenever He teaches that there is no shadow of turning in Him. etc.

Nu 23:19 "God [is] not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (God is truthful and faithful, He does not error in His judgments, He just does not know the uncertain outcomes of every yet future event, so sometimes God willingly repents from doing what He thought or said He would do.) Mal 3:6 "For I [am] the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. (God is just and swift and faithful against
“sorcerers, Against adulterers, Against perjurers, Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, And against those who turn away an alien—Because they do not fear Me," Says the LORD of hosts.”
We can count on God’s character and ways.) Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today, and forever. (The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid because of His awesome presence in my life, remain steadfast in sound doctrine that God richly provides, He is faithful and true, we can count on Jesus forever.) Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (God is good and never evil, it is a condemnable slander to say that “good may come from evil”, it can not. God does not even tempt us with evil, man is the unstable variable element, not God. God is righteous and faithful and true.) I see no reason to overstep the contextual development of these teachings that God designed them to be understood within. Biblical, not classical, divine immutability is right when taken in conformity with all of God’s word.

Excellent post Clete!

[1Way]

Sometimes it is so much fun digging into God’s word. Here are some more examples of God’s bent towards being sort of tricky and not overly obvious.

Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."

Joh 12:47 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. See, 2 very contradicting ideas, but they are to be understood in different yet similar ways.

Mt 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
2 seeming contradictions Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 1 reasonable solution Sorry for the tangent path. Enjoy God’s word!

[Clete]

Originally posted by Knight

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12898) :first:

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet! ;)


Resting in Him,
Clete

[Knight]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet! ;)


Resting in Him,
Clete The best posts tend to say so much with as few words as possible.

Those are the type of posts I like the most. :up:

[smaller]

Some God. He saves 5% of the population???

Calvinists and Arminians are the same in this respect. 95% still end up being tortured forever by the God who commands us to love our enemies while He gets to burn His.

For some reason or another God just can't seem to get the job done.

In Calvinism He WILL not.

In Arminianism He CAN not.

You would all do well to see the "unbeliever" for what it is. The BLINDNESS that is CAUSED BY the "god" of this world. That makes SIN indwelling men and EVIL present within men the "unbeliever."

Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does.

This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure...

enjoy!

smaller

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Rolf,

Your points are invalid because you fail to rightly understand what Peter is actually saying. You said,

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: “see, He is’not willing’ that any individual of mankind perish. He wants ‘all’ (every--each and every) to “come to repentance.”

This verse in no way implies that God "wants all to come to repentance." There are other verses that say that, but 2 Peter 3:9 does not. As much as you would love the OVer's here to defend that position, 2 Peter 3:9 is not saying that. More on that in a moment... You continue,

Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to “usward”: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world...

Where does God's Word say anything about Him electing individuals "before the foundation of the world?" It doesn't... :kookoo:

So, what exactly is 2 Peter 3:9 saying? Peter's second epistle was written somewhere around forty years after the day of Pentecost. Shortly before Pentecost, the believers were "expecting Christ's immediate return" (Acts 1:6). Peter stands up on the day of Pentecost and preaches a wonderful sermon describing "the last days" and Israel's enduring the tribulation. When Peter quotes Joel's "Day of the Lord" prophecy, Peter says,

"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel..."

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter changes Joel's original prophecy from,

Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward..."

to

Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days..."

Why is this significant? Peter believed that the tribulation was going to begin, and after seven years, Christ would return and set up the Kingdom. Now, approximately forty years after Pentecost, Peter is still waiting for Tribulation and establishment of the Kingdom. That's why Peter writes,

2 Peter 3
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 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 creation.”

It seems that Peter is being ridiculed because he is still waiting for Christ's return. Peter, however, remains faithful...

2 Peter 3
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter defends God, and reassures his brethern that God will indeed return, just as promised. Then we get to our verse, 2 Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise..." Christ will return because God has promised it. Now, let's discuss your interpretation of the last half of verse 9...

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not counseling any to perish but counseling all to have room for repentance.

Most english translations say "not willing" any to perish. The word used here is much stronger. God is "not counseling" any to perish. Peter uses the word boulomenoV, which is a strong word for Counsel. So, God is strongly not counseling any to perish. This flies in the face of calvinism. John Calvin himself said God predestines men to hell. :kookoo: Peter is saying that God is not counseling any to perish. So then, what is God "counseling?" God is counseling every person on the face of the earth "to have room for" repentance. For some reason, the calvinistic english translators took the liberty of translating a word that means "to have room for" as "come." Why do they do this? I have no idea. :confused: Let me show you how this word is used and that it should be translated "have room for."

Here's the last half of 2 Peter 3:9 in the original...

2 Peter 3:9b
9b mh boulemenoV tinaV apolesqai, alla pantaV eiV metanoian cwrhsai

Notice the word cwrhsai in red. This word means "to have room for." This word is also used in John 2:6.

John 2:6
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, having room for cwrousai twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

The same root word, cwrew is used in 2 Peter 3:9. Just as the stone waterpots "have room for" twenty or thirty gallons apiece, God counsels all to "have room for" repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 single-handedly destroys the calvinistic doctrine of election. God does not elect individuals to heaven or hell. God has given man the gift of contrary choice. God has given every single person enough room in his or her heart to believe in Him. If man accepts God, God saves man. If man rejects God, God condems man to hell. God gives us the choice, and has made the provision for every single person to believe. That's why when God says He desires all men to be saved,

1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

...He means it! God does desire every person to be saved. God "made room" in each of us to come to repentance. Sadly, however, the majority will not. This is not because God chooses them to hell, but rather, because they choose themselves to hell. Since we all have enough room to believe, the following verse is true also...

1 Timothy 4
10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Again, God made the provision of salvation available to all men. He preached His gospel "in every creature under heaven."

Colossians 1:23b
23b the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

God wrote His law on everyone's heart, and gave them a conscience...

Romans 2
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Because of free will, many humans reject God. God has done everything He could do for us. He preached the gospel in us, wrote His law on our hearts, sent His Son to die for us, and counseled every person to have room for repentance. God does not choose man to hell as John Calvin believes...

--Jeremy

[1Way]

smaller said "Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does." No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop, and then he says This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure... By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! :thumb: You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do. You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

Go figure,

enjoy! No one respects a hypocrite.

[1Way]

Jeremy – This is from my free OnLineBible study program, I’m wanting to see if the Greek font shows up like your did on my computer! Previously I had no luck doing this a long time ago, so here goes something.
2Pe 3:9
ou bradunei o kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroyumei eiv hmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesyai alla pantav eiv metanoian cwrhsai

2Pe 3:9 ALT
The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, _but_ He is waiting patiently towards us, not wanting any to be lost _but_ [for] all to make room for repentance.
(ALT = Analytical Literal translation)
... God wishes "all" (pantav) to come (cwrhsai first aorist active infinitive of chrew, old verb, to make room).
(A T Robinson NT Word Pictures)
According to my OnLineBible study program, Joh 21:25 uses the same word as 2Pet 3.9 and the contextual use is certainly more about “having room for” than “not should come to”. Imagine the KJV’s translation rending of this same word in 2Pt 3.9 “should come to” instead of it’s own use in John 21:25(!) “could (not*) contain” (* the negation is supplied elsewhere), would read something like

“... I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books ... (!!!)

Now that would be a terrible translation, and was “probably” a factor for why they did not also weaken/alter the sense here too, I see that according to my Greek underlying text, these are the only two occasions for the same word and they happen to have the same voice tense mood.

Aorist = without specific regard to past, present, future)
Active = the subject as the doer or performer of the action.
Infinitive = the verb with "to" prefixed, as "to believe."
i.e. ("It is better to live than to die"),
("This was done to fulfil what the prophet said").

So in Jn 21.25 = the world {could not} contain/{could not} have room for) all the books ...

And
2Pt 3.9 = God counsels ... that all make room unto repentance.

God counsels ... (that) “all” “to make room” “for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “unto” “repentance”

God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (.....) “all” “(to) make room for” “repentance”

I wonder what a real scholar would say about that rendering. :o

Anyway, when we carefully consider the rest of the bible’s use of a word, so often it can become so clear as to the better understanding of that word’s meaning. Many times it outperforms lexical definitions.
Joh 21:25
estin de kai alla polla osa epoihsen o ihsouv atina ean grafhtai kay en oude auton oimai ton kosmon cwrhsai ta grafomena biblia amhn

Joh 21:25 EMTV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would have room for the books which would be written. Amen.

EMTV = English Majority Text Version Paul W. Esposito
ALT same rendering
WEB same rendering
GW = God's Word = same rendering
YLT “to have place for” It’s seems that the use of “have room for” is well supported.

So, Jeremy, how do you get that Greek font to work? Ok, I used the symbol font, but I don’t know if it works right or not since my bible study program does not use symbol for my Greek font. There is a slight difference between the OLB and the Symbol fonts, do you just fix the odd characters manually if necessary?

[smaller]

Peace 1way

No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

And this is relevant how? Oh, that's right. Your words are meant to show the OWNERSHIP of 1way by THE ACCUSER of others. A thing that he hates to have REVEALED, yet he drools it continually, day and night.

smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop,

Ahem, I believe ALL PEOPLE are SAVED, so your FALSE accusations again RING as "hollow" as your positions.

By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

Some are given in this life to BELIEVE in The Son of God. I am such, not of my will, but of Him who CALLED me.

I already know you SAVED YOURSELF. That is why YOU CONDEMN OTHERS to eternal torture.

I also do not deny THAT SIN DWELLS IN ME and and EVIL IS PRESENT with me.

On this basis alone ALL OF YOU should be ASHAMED to condemn any other person to ETERNAL TORMENT, yet you are LOCKED INTO eternal judgment by the "master" of your own flesh, and as such you ALL represent the GREATEST FORM OF HATRED that satan could have trumphed up.

This from the very mouths that are supposed to PRESERVE the earth.

smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do.

I love it when the accuser grips a mans heart so fiercely that they FOAM AT THE MOUTH without CAUSE.

You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

No, that would be YOU who does such a foolish thing. I conceed that there is NO WAY to define or capture God and that ALL THINGS serve Him. You however have only 1way to define god and this is the little helpless god you have hacked out of your imaginations and demand others bow to. I call this IDOLATRY.

enjoy!

smaller

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--In your post # 2 above (the 2nd post on this thread)--why do you have no Scripture text to respond with? Matters of theology concern Scripture. You didn't cite even one in response to my post on 2Pet. 3:9. This thread is about that text in particular. Don't evade that text. Justify your Arminian view of it.

[Rolf Ernst]

god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way---Why not deal with the points made on 2Pet 3:9?? You are Arminian, let me see you marshal some verses which show a better interpretation of the verse. It appears that you don't want to do anything other than bury that issue under an avalanche of your usual evasions

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

i did not say it should be moved, only that it might be more appropriate in the attributes of God forum. i suggested it because the attributes of God forum deals more with predestination, calvinism, open theism and the like and this thread seems to be all about that.

in the end, it was Knights decision to move the thread so if you have a good reason why you feel it should be back in the general theology forum, take it up with him.

[Rolf Ernst]

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

[Rolf Ernst]

God is Truth--Okay, as they say--whatever, wherever

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--In your post # 2 above (the 2nd post on this thread)--why do you have no Scripture text to respond with? Matters of theology concern Scripture. You didn't cite even one in response to my post on 2Pet. 3:9. This thread is about that text in particular. Don't evade that text. Justify your Arminian view of it.

:confused: Did you read my post? :confused:

Here I'll quote what I said concerning the passage in question...

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Perhaps this was a bit too cryptic for you so I'll spell it out in simpler language...

2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what is seems to mean by a simple reading of the text. Any home schooled third grader could understand it. If you don't believe me, ask one. He'll definitely come closer to getting it than you have.

Your having turned this passage completely upside down does nothing but damage to your position that "The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view." If this were so, then such theological hoop jumping would not be necessary. The fact that Calvinism has problems with such simple and clear passages of scripture as 2 Peter 3:9 is proof positive that Calvinism is seriously flawed.

You say that you want me to provide scripture in my argument! Fine, but just remember, you asked for it!

Luke 7:30 “30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”

Jeremiah 19:5 “5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I (God) commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:”

Genesis 6:6 - And the Lord was sorry (Lit. repented) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Exodus 32:14 - So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Deut. 32:36 - Indeed, the LORD will judge his people,
and he will change his mind about his servants,
when he sees their strength is gone
and no one is left, slave or free

I Samuel 15:35 - And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 - When the Lord's angel was about to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord changed his mind about punishing the people and said to the angel who was killing them, "Stop! That's enough!" The angel was by the threshing place of Araunah, a Jebusite

Jer. 15:6 - You have forsaken me and turned your back on me," says the LORD. "Therefore, I will raise my clenched fists to destroy you. I am tired of always giving you another chance.

Jer. 18:8, 10 - and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I (God) will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I (God) will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I intend to do to them because of their evil doings.

Jer 42:10 If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I (God) repent of the evil which I did to you.

Joe 2:13 and rend your hearts and not your garments." Return to the LORD, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

Amo 7:3 The LORD repented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the LORD

Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by smaller
Ahem, I believe ALL PEOPLE are SAVED...

Ahem, you are an idiot!

Luke 16:22 - 31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Numbers 16:30 "But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that [appertain] unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods. 33 They, and all that [appertained] to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that [were] round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up [also].

That’s just two of quite a large number of passages in the Bible that very clearly indicate that people are set to hell.

And one other thing; God could have killed both Adam and Eve right on the spot for having eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In His mercy, He did not. You attribute to God only 5% of the population, I tend to be a bit more optimistic than that but the point is that even 1 is better than none and I firmly believe that God would have made provision for the salvation of even 1 single person, never mind 5% of the population of the planet which is already a number north of 300 million people!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[1Way]

Ralf – Post 1 of 2

You said 1Way---Why not deal with the points made on 2Pet 3:9?? You are Arminian, let me see you marshal some verses which show a better interpretation of the verse. It appears that you don't want to do anything other than bury that issue under an avalanche of your usual evasions. You must mean my first post only. I admit that I was focusing on Clete’s post and not yours. I’m posting more about your stuff as we go along.

In my next post, I affirmed the literal meaning of 2Pet 3:9 primarily by showing the other very clear use of the word S’s#5562 “(to) make/have room”, which soundly denies the closed view because

it’s God’s will that none perish (= everlasting damnation),

and that “all” “make room for repentance”, (= have everlasting life)

:thumb:

no one is left out of God’s will for salvation in this double stated affirmation thus greatly emphasized idea against limited atonement because it holds that God purposes that only the few get saved.

Here is a verse that supports my reasoning that it should not be “come to” “make room for” The English words could contain is the same word as “come to” in 2Pet 3.9.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Using the translation idea in 2Pet 3.9 from the KJV and it’s many followers, would render the following idea in John 21.25

“... I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books ... (!!!)
“... I suppose that not even the world itself should come to the books ... (!!!)

So Jeremy and myself are right that 2Pet 3.9 teaches that it’s God’s will that everyone have room for repentance.

We are not Arminian, such gross falsification helps no one at all, and you’ve been told this and shown why it is wrong, so for your refusal to stand corrected in the face of the truth of the matter, you show yourself to be unnecessarily offensive and willing to purposefully falsify others.

“My usual evasions”.
Keep this up and you will be purposefully ignored for the sake of avoiding so much falsification. The fact is that I am an extremely thorough and non-evasive poster. I admit to overlooking some posts, I do not respond to all posts, occasionally some posts are not worth the time and effort, etc.

[1Way]

Ralf – Post 2 of 2

Ok, as to your first post, you said Chapters two and three show Peter’s concern about false teachings. ..._..._... (1) In the third chapter he deals with one error in particular. Unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter’s response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. (2) He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: “see, He is’not willing’ that any individual of mankind perish. He wants ‘all’ (every--each and every) to “come to repentance.”

My, my. We do have a problem here. (3) If He is delaying that coming in judgment because He doesn’t want “any” in the Arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self-defeating because the fact is that in every age, the broad road which leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road which leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die.

(1) It is true that Peter deals with one particular problem but not in a vacuum. Here is the contextual development.

2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you (a double epistle wide reason for writing) this second epistle (in [both of] which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 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 creation." The larger more comprehensive point is not about dealing with scoffers, the overarching point is to remain in focus on God’s word and His teachings. Evidently they were getting off focus and spending too much time dealing with other things.

(2) Not true and this false concept destroys the central aspect of your thesis. The fact is that there is no reason given for why God has not returned. The argumentation flows as follows.

1-2 pay attention to God’s counsel
3-4 false counsel is unrighteousness, Christ’s second coming is scoffed at
5-7 since the flood, the heavens and earth have been preserved for the day of judgment
8 God is not forgetful, He has a supernatural intellect
9 The Lord terry’s and is longsuffering "as demonstrated" by His will that all get saved, not He terry’s "because" He desires that more become saved
10 but the day of the Lord will come ... do not be deceived

More to the point, in v.9, it’s

9a – God is not unfaithful, he is longsuffering – 9b – He desires that all become saved

So 9b is not as you said, the reason He has not yet returned, it is an example of His “longsuffering”

(3) We don’t agree that God is delaying “because” He desires that “all become saved”. That is not only inaccurate, it is simply not provided by scripture. What was provided by scripture was “an example” of God’s longsuffering toward us, which is true and makes no support for your errant views and straw man thesis.

5% may be more conservative that many estimates. I’d say more like 10-20% or so, yet 5% is much closer than many liberals and ungodly would like to think.

[smaller]

Peace clete P

Ahem, you are an idiot!

But clete, you JUST FINISHED posting that ALL SINS are forgiven of MANkind and that JESUS is The Saviour of The World.

Now you fall immediately into denial.

Luke 16:22 - 31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

A simple understanding for you clete. The RICH MAN had NO NAME. There is a reason for this. You see the RICH MAN possessed the flesh body of Lazarus. This is known as SIN indwelling and EVIL present with ALL people (Romans 7:17,20,21 and others)

In all the WORD there is not a SINGLE INSTANCE of a NAMED PERSON going to BE BURNED IN FIRE FOREVER.

When Lazarus died he was SEPARATED from the "rich man" or SIN that possessed him. (Romans 6:7)

You see that is why JESUS is THE WORLDS Saviour, get it??? I doubt it.

Numbers 16:30 "But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that [appertain] unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods. 33 They, and all that [appertained] to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that [were] round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up [also].

God often separates His Children from what they are bound with. Death is rather enjoyable to God in this sense.

That’s just two of quite a large number of passages in the Bible that very clearly indicate that people are set to hell.

Hey clete, it's more like that little voice in your head 'cause God's Word sure does not present that. Men MISTAKE the punishment meant for the devil and his messengers for MANkind. This does not hold scriptural water.

And one other thing; God could have killed both Adam and Eve right on the spot for having eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Adam was God's son. I think God has NOTHING but the BEST intentions for His Own Children.

The reality is you see DEATH TO OTHERS in your own heart because that is what is IN YOU. The Word reveals these things.

In His mercy, He did not. You attribute to God only 5% of the population, I tend to be a bit more optimistic than that but the point is that even 1 is better than none and I firmly believe that God would have made provision for the salvation of even 1 single person, never mind 5% of the population of the planet which is already a number north of 300 million people!

I'm sorry that you serve such a pathetic looser clete. Good thing YOU made the LUCKY CHOICE and SELF atoned for yourself.

Resting in Him,

You're no different than MOST of Jesus' supposed followers. You damn others to BURN FOREVER for what is ALSO IN YOU.

go figure....

I see you as another casualty of war. My postings here are like a visit to the hospital. Sick people you guys are.

enjoy!

smaller

[Clete]

I see you as another casualty of war. My postings here are like a visit to the hospital. Sick people you guys are.

If you are right, they are also a waste of time. What is the point in convinving people that they are wrong if they are going to be saved anyway, regardless of what they believe or do? Your arguments are self defeating and rediculous!

Why do you even call yourself a Christian in the first place?
Do you even believe that Jesus is God?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Ahem, you are an idiot!

Here we go with the name-calling again. Can you not make a point without degrading anyone else? Just a little more civilized, please?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Perhaps this was a bit too cryptic for you so I'll spell it out in simpler language...

2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what is seems to mean by a simple reading of the text. Any home schooled third grader could understand it.

Then how come you don't understand it?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Your having turned this passage completely upside down does nothing but damage to your position that "The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view." If this were so, then such theological hoop jumping would not be necessary. The fact that Calvinism has problems with such simple and clear passages of scripture as 2 Peter 3:9 is proof positive that Calvinism is seriously flawed.

And I thought Howard Dean was a horrible debator.....

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer You say that you want me to provide scripture in my argument! Fine, but just remember, you asked for it!

Oh Father Clete, please give us your holy word. Amen.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Luke 7:30 “30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”


What is your point here?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Jeremiah 19:5 “5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I (God) commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:”

I think we have gone over this verse before. Mind translated in the Greek means Heart. Their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart. His mind never changes.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Genesis 6:6 - And the Lord was sorry (Lit. repented) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

God was grieved because man had fallen into sin. This verse isn't proof text to back up open theism. I thought most open theists believed God knew man would and will sin. I don't see the argument with this passage.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Exodus 32:14 - So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

If you read the verses all around this passage you will see it is Moses interceding for the Israelites for God not to destroy them. Please tell me you believe God knew the hearts of his people and the leader Moses (whom God raised up) and where this story was going. Moses was on Mt Sinai for a very long time, giving the people ample time to build an idol. God knew this was occuring before Moses did. You have to keep in the back of your mind the power of omniscience of God always. Never forget that.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Deut. 32:36 - Indeed, the LORD will judge his people,
and he will change his mind about his servants,
when he sees their strength is gone
and no one is left, slave or free

I Samuel 15:35 - And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 - When the Lord's angel was about to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord changed his mind about punishing the people and said to the angel who was killing them, "Stop! That's enough!" The angel was by the threshing place of Araunah, a Jebusite

Jer. 15:6 - You have forsaken me and turned your back on me," says the LORD. "Therefore, I will raise my clenched fists to destroy you. I am tired of always giving you another chance.

Jer. 18:8, 10 - and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I (God) will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I (God) will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I intend to do to them because of their evil doings.

Jer 42:10 If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I (God) repent of the evil which I did to you.

Joe 2:13 and rend your hearts and not your garments." Return to the LORD, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

Amo 7:3 The LORD repented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the LORD

Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

The rest of these verses, I think I have already answered before. Clete, you cannot read the Bible like you read Oliver Twist or Cinderella. If God can possibly change His mind over the people He created, we are all in trouble. Throw eternal security right out the window. In other words, you just better not ever sin anymore.

That's ridiculous! Its called works-based salvation, and its what the Catholics practice.

[smaller]

Peace clete

If you are right, they are also a waste of time.
What is the point in convinving people that they are wrong if they are going to be saved anyway, regardless of what they believe or do?

Most "believers" when they actually HEAR the Good News, at first CANNOT ACCEPT it. It is TOO MUCH for them to bear.

This has NOTHING to do with me being right clete. God's Word is ALREADY THERE on the matter and THAT settles it.

God had a REASON to bound ALL people with "disobedience." This was a part of His Plan FROM THE BEGINNING. You can read about the "end result" of a portion of that in ROMANS 11:32, right after Paul gets done describing that ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED, even the enemies of THE GOSPEL in vs. 26-30.

Your arguments are self defeating and rediculous!

Well let's see:

"Jesus is the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD."

clete: NO HE IS NOT!

"God was in Christ RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF"

clete: NO HE IS NOT!

Now WHO is contradictory here clete. BTW before you start posting DAMNATION texts, I believe ALL of them. Just not for PEOPLE.

Why do you even call yourself a Christian in the first place?
Do you even believe that Jesus is God?

Yes I do. Not the pathetic little worthless god you have made Him though eh? The one you serve is the one you carved out in your head. Your little god only saves you if you save yourself. Just like the rest of you idol worshippers.

enjoy!

smaller

[Clete]

Originally posted by smaller
Your little god only saves you if you save yourself. Just like the rest of you idol worshippers.

You mean SAVED idol worshippers . Right?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

Ephesians (book about Christ and the CHURCH). These verses talk about a general corporate election. It is not explicit that it refers to specific individuals by name from all eternity. God purposed to have a people. This collective group is made up of all who would eventually repent and believe.

Prov. 8 is a personification of wisdom (context) and has nothing to do with individual salvation.

Jer. 31 God's love for ISRAEL (context) is a high, deep, wide love that is everlasting. It is a Hebraism for God's endless love for the nation of Israel (not a proof text for individual election).

I Pet. 1:2 is a corporate election vs individual. Based on other verses, it is not a causative/irresistable election, but an intention to have a people for His name (whosoever believes in Him will be added to the corporate elect...it is not necessary to see this as an individual election).

[Rolf Ernst]

FOR THOSE WHO THINK SOME TEXTS MILITATE AGAINST GOD'S IMMUTABILITY-----



Those instances in which it is said God repents--you must either believe that the Bible contradicts itself concerning God's immutability, or else dare believe (HORRORS!) that the fault is in a limit on your human understanding. But that is not at all likely to those who have a reservoir of hatred toward God and are spitefully unwilling to accept THAT possibility. They prefer to charge Him with error.
There are many instances in which God speaks on the level of man's thought processes--refers to Himself as if He were a man. You find anthropomorphisms throughout the Bible. God is a Spirit, but when speaking to man about His power, He speaks of Himself to men as if He were also a man, such as when speaking of the might of His power, He speaks of the power of His right hand. Hint: most men's greatest strength is in their right hand--get it??
When He speaks of a change in action toward certain of His creatures, it in no way shows an alteration in what He has eternally purposed, but if men were to do the new thing He is going to do concerning certain of His creatures, such actions in men would be the result of their changing their mind about an issue. The anthromophorism use by God in Scripture at such times is not the result of any change in God, but the result of the change of position the creature(s) now occupy before Him, such as when the wickedness of the antediluvians reached that point which was the end of God's longsuffering towards them, or as when the Ninevites properly responded to Jonah's preaching. In dealing with humans God speaks on their level for the sake of their comprhension. God did not alter His being in the least. The ninevites altered their conduct before Him and according to His many Biblical promises of mercy upon repentance, showed them mercy.

[Rolf Ernst]

The above post is for you, Clete, and for 1Way. You people are not dealing with 2 Pet. 3:9 according to what it says.

[billwald]

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. 3:9

God doesn't get what he wills? Sounds like a good verse for universalism.

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--you say that you are not an Arminian. Your use of scripture says you are. Maybe you don't know what an Arminian is. Can you define Arminian doctrine? If you can't, your complaint that you are not an Arminian is meaningless.
Did you read my post about God's immutability and your attempts to evade it? It is typical of Arminians that they don't mind holding views of Scripture which leave scripture texts in a contradictory tension with one another. You are very happy to do so in regard to God's immutability. Classic Arminianism!

[Rolf Ernst]

Billwald--you are missing the point altogether. 2 Pet. 3:9 proves that God gets PRECISELY what He wills--and it is not universalism. It is the salvation of ALL; All those, that is, whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.
It is sad that so many are not able to distinguish between "all"
of a certain group or category and the universal "all." Their mind is blind to the use of all except as used to denote all universally. How deprived!

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz-----------If it is not an individual election, as you say, why is it that each of their names were written down in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world? Is THAT NOT INDIVIDUAL? Is YOUR name individual, or is your name corporate?

See Rev. 13:8

[godrulz]

The other issue is the concept of 'immutability'. Is it the Calvinistic, pagan Greek philosophy influenced idea that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense; or is it the biblical revelation that God is unchanging in His eternal attributes and character, but is still changing in the sense of experiences, relationships, responses, etc. i.e. He is a dynamic, personal being with will (actions), intellect (thoughts), and emotions (feelings). These personal concepts require succession, sequence, duration or else we are left with a theological and philosophical absurdity ('eternal now' concept is not defensible...you cannot listen to a symphony in one second or it will be cacaphony...you cannot create the universe and incarnate and die on the cross and return for the second coming in one instant). An impersonal, impassible (not feeling), 'immutable' god is not the one revealed in the Word and Jesus (God in the flesh).

We uphold immutability, properly understood, and recognize anthopomorphisms (appropriately, but not at the expense of a literal revelation of God and His ways).

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

The other issue is the concept of 'immutability'. Is it the Calvinistic, pagan Greek philosophy influenced idea that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense; or is it the biblical revelation that God is unchanging in His eternal attributes and character, but is still changing in the sense of experiences, relationships, responses, etc. i.e. He is a dynamic, personal being with will (actions), intellect (thoughts), and emotions (feelings).

It sounds to me like the open view provides all these exceptions to the rule. All that means is, is that God is limited. Right? Is that what you are saying godrulz? And since when is it "pagan" to believe that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense? Or is that just your label on it?

Originally posted by godrulz These personal concepts require succession, sequence, duration or else we are left with a theological and philosophical absurdity ('eternal now' concept is not defensible...you cannot listen to a symphony in one second or it will be cacaphony...you cannot create the universe and incarnate and die on the cross and return for the second coming in one instant). An impersonal, impassible (not feeling), 'immutable' god is not the one revealed in the Word and Jesus (God in the flesh).

References please? These are just your opinions. And this is a theology forum. Need references (from Scripture, not some open theist author) to back up your opinions, if you can find any.

Originally posted by godrulz We uphold immutability, properly understood, and recognize anthopomorphisms (appropriately, but not at the expense of a literal revelation of God and His ways).

Then what does immutability mean to you then?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz-----------If it is not an individual election, as you say, why is it that God wrote each of their names were written down in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world? Is THAT NOT INDIVIDUAL? Is YOUR name individual, or is your name corporate?

See Rev. 13:8

Greek grammar is the key...try another translation:

NIV (alternate legit. translation...scholars differ)

"All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast- all whose names have not been written (Greek tense...names added one by one through the years rather than in eternity past) in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."

- the Lamb was not literally slain at creation, but the potential, formulated plan of redemption now became a certain plan after the Fall...He died thousands of years later (actual fulfillment of the plan)...the Lamb was slain from creation (not literal), not that the names were written from before creation...they were added as individuals joined the corporate body of believers. God purposed/elected Israel/Church, but did not predestine individuals to be in heaven or hell. Faith or unbelief determines destiny or whether one is in or outside the group known as the people of God.

I Pet. 1:20..The Redeemer was chosen as a formulated plan (before creation of the world) that was implemented in history AFTER the Fall (Gen. 3...because you have done this, I will send the Redeemer).

cf. Rev. 17:8 names added one by one as they repent/believe starting at the beginning of human history...not that every future, non-existent person had their name written in a book trillions of years ago.

Rev. 3:5 implies the possibility of having one's name erased if they do not overcome. The book is flexible, vs fixed.

Rev. 13:8 is not a proof-text against corporate election (unless you have a pre-conceived theology). Robert Shank (Southern Baptist) makes a strong biblical case for corporate election (as do many others).

[godrulz]

Sword:

Trace the history of the doctrine of 'immutability' through Augustine as He was influenced by Plato and Philo. Calvin then adopted this idea.

As I posted, immutability refers to God's essential character (He is unchanging in holiness, love, faithfulness, etc.) and His unique attributes (He always will be triune, Creator, uncreated, omnipresent/omniscient/omnipotent, eternal, etc.).

A straightforward reading of Scripture (His Story) shows a God who changes in His dispositions, relationships, thoughts, actions, feelings, etc. He changes because He is personal, dynamic, alive....e.g. He had a specific relationship with Adam that changed after the Fall. The incarnation is a change in space-time history that affected the Godhead. He said creation is very good...then (sequence) He was grieved and changed his intentions...I will wipe it out...The creature, in the image of God, is not greater than the Creator in ability to experience personal attributes. This does not detract from His perfection or unchangeable qualities, but reflects every page of the Bible and His revelation of His nature and ways.

[Rolf Ernst]

God rulz--the scriptural concept of immutability is--"known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Isa.46:9,10

"...the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

" known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--the corporate body of Christ is made up of individual believers chosen individually, "according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Eph, 1:4
Individuals were given to Christ as His seed. To individuals He is their "everlasting Father." As Adam had certain ones in him, so also Christ had given to Him certain ones on behalf of whom He is their federal head. This is not the impersonal coporate whole in any regard, but the number of individuals chosen who, together make up the whole bodsy of Christ. Slice it any way you like, the body of Christ is made up of individuals with differing gifts according to His pleasure.

[smaller]

God's Word regarding the SALVATION OF ALL MANkind is like the plague for most believers.

They are afraid to even touch it.

"GOD IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, e-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10)

Not "potential saviour" not "maybe" saviour. Saviour.

clete- Impossible! GOD IS ONLY EFFECTIVE IF I SAY SO!

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--concerning your saying that Proverbs 8 is the personificatiojn of wisdom and has nothing to do with salvation: Christ is the personification of wisdom, and Proverbs eight is about the covenant of redemption in which Christ was "brought forth" as the wisdom of God before the foundation of the world (which is largely expressed in Prov. 8, which is about the covenant of redemption struck before He created the highest part of the dust of the earth. Verses 30 and 31 refer to Christ and His rejoicing in the creation and in those given to Him before the creation of the world.
That involves salvation.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--concerning your saying that Proverbs 8 is the personificatiojn of wisdom and has nothing to do with salvation: Christ is the personification of wisdom, and Proverbs eight is about the covenant of redemption in which Christ was "brought forth" as the wisdom of God before the foundation of the world (which is largely expressed in Prov. 8, which is about the covenant of redemption struck before He created the highest part of the dust of the earth. Verses 30 and 31 refer to Christ and His rejoicing in the creation and in those given to Him before the creation of the world.
That involves salvation.

Christ is the wisdom of God, but Proverbs is wisdom literature. In context it honestly is a personification of wisdom, not a didactic passage about Christ (read the whole chapter e.g. v. 12 "I, wisdom...")

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

God rulz--the scriptural concept of immutability is--"known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Isa.46:9,10

"...the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

" known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

James 1:17 refers to His solid character that is not fickle.

Is. 46:9,10 refers to things that God purposes to bring to pass by His ability. It does not mean that every mundane and moral choice is predestined. He predestines some, but not all things.

Acts 15:8 quotes Amos 9:11,12 and is a specific promise that God, by His ability, will restore Israel (and include the Gentiles in His plan). It is not a general proof text saying that God predestines individuals before they are born to chose to know or reject Him (Church). He knows that He will restore Israel based on His covenant with them.

Acts 15:18 "...says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages." He prophesies and does things by His power (not foreknowledge).

'known to the Lord for ages is his work..." is only in some MSS....don't build a doctrine on a verse with 2 legit. translations that does not have the context or conclusion you are trying to force on it (context is not about individual election but the restoration of Israel and Gentiles collectively, who are made up of individuals who believe).

[*Acts9_12Out*]

1Way,

You said,

So, Jeremy, how do you get that Greek font to work? Ok, I used the symbol font, but I don’t know if it works right or not since my bible study program does not use symbol for my Greek font. There is a slight difference between the OLB and the Symbol fonts, do you just fix the odd characters manually if necessary?

I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage...

John 2:6b
...water pots coming twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

That's crazy! Keep up the good work brother!

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

Rolf,

Out of all the points I raised, this is the only thing you respond to? The topic of this thread is 2 Peter 3:9. 1 Way and I have shown how a correct translation of the passage clears up your "apparent" problem for us. Again, God is not "counseling" all of the elect to come to repentance, but rather "counsels" all to have room for repentance. This passage single-handedly affirms zero-point calvinism to be true. God's counseling all to have room for repentance is the point everyone here is missing...

--Jeremy

[Rolf Ernst]

Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--you dismiss the message concerning Christ in Proverbs.
He didn't. Don't be so eager to not hear the word of God in your zeal for a God dishonoring heresy known as Arminianism.

I wonder if it could reach an Arminian heart if I cited a verse in which Christ Himself refers to Himself as the wisdom of God? HMMM?
"Therefore the wisdom of God also said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute."" Lk. 11:49 Compare that with Mt. 23:34 in which Christ says,

"...I send you prophets, wise men and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city."

Your dismissing the impact of the Scripture's testimony concerning Christ in Proverbs eight reminds me of the time when Jesus "...expounded to them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning Himself." Lk.24:27 Today's disciples need to see Him in Scripture rather than overlook him as had those on the road to Emmaus.

Don't conveniently ignore the main point of this post--that Christ referred to Himself as the wisdom of God.

[godrulz]

A few allegorical translators have wrongly seen Proverbs 8 as primarily a Christological passage (eisegesis). Most literal, grammatical, contextual, historical interpreters (normative) know Christ is the wisdom of God from a verse in the NT, but still recognize the primary interpretation of Prov. 8 as a personification of wisdom (consistent with the Book of Proverbs as wisdom literature, not as didactic, Christological, or Messianic prophecies). Walk through Prov. 8 verse by verse. It would be straining things to see this as a direct allusion to Christ. Why not say Prov. 9 is about Christ since it continues in the same style? There is much figurative language here (sends out her maids, mixes her wine...etc. what does that have to do with Christ?).

It is also interesting that JWs (cult) use Prov. 8:22 ff. as a proof-text for Arianism (Christ is a created angel). This is refuted by recognizing the context of wisdom literature is not about Christ, but wisdom personified.

This is similar to the allegorical interpreters (subjective) who see Song of Songs/Solomon (Hebraic poetic literature) as primarily about Christ and the Church (there is an application by way of principle). Most recognize the primary interpretation is simply a book of romantic, human love. You can preach an allegorical message from it, but that was not the primary intention as the Spirit inspired the book to be recorded (your breasts are like coconuts, your hair is like a flock of goats, etc.).

If you use a similar allegorical method (like some old commentators do) with the Book of Revelation, you will end up with a subjective mess reading every current event back into the book.

So, Christ is the wisdom of God but Prov. 8 is not the place to be making a big doctrine about redemption. More explicit passages should be used that are not wisdom literature (vs didactic). Every reference in the Bible to the 'wisdom of God' is not Christological (that would be a gross interpretation error).

Your view is a theory and a minority view. I would not be dogmatic about it.

[1Way]

Rolf – We presented the same translation’s use in the other instances demonstrating their own inconsistent contrary use even with the same word and voice tense mode. If you trust 2Pet 3.9 should be translated “come (to)”, instead of “make room (for)”, then do you discredit the translater’s accuracy in John 21:25 where the same word with the same voice tense mood is translated “could contain” which is essentially the same idea as “have room”?

If not then you are not understanding our point. We are simply observing two things.

1) They translated the same word inconsistently, also same with various forms of the same root word.

2) Their variance of meaning observed is shown to be self correcting by simply swapping the alternate renderings to see which rendering naturally conforms to the contextual development.

As to the first, various renderings are common and standard practice, but this inconsistency involves more than just accepted variance within the of scope of the word’s meaning. When we consider the other uses, it is obvious that 2Pet 3.9 is wrong because of the contradictory unbiblical nature of the meaning when examined in the other occurrences documented for your consideration.

Evidently you don’t appreciate or understand what has been presented for your consideration, or you simply don’t want to. :confused:

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Rolf,

You started this thread about 2 Peter 3:9 and gave us your "opinion" of it. You "interpreted" the passage for us all, and told us what you think. I have taken the time to learn God's original language to better understand His hidden treasures. I offer Scriptural evidence to show that God intended something other than what your calvinist brethern "translated." I showed that your initial premise was in error. How do you respond?

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

The burden of proof is on you to explain away the true meaning of cwreo. Check any Greek lexicon to see what that word really means. Again, the burden of proof is on you to explain to us all why your calvinist brethern misrepresent Scripture and mistranslate words to fit their presuppositions. I challenge you to research the word to see what it means. I challenge you to run a concordance of the word to see how the word is continually translated. Good luck...

--Jeremy

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

I wouldn't trust someone making an idiotic statement such as this. How do you know that "all those translators are capable" of translating the Bible? If they all are so capable, then why do they disagree with each other? Not one translator EVER has given you a reason why he translated 2 Peter 3:9 the way that he did, but you believe it, and when Acts9 actually gives you scriptural proof of why it should be translated such, you deny it because it doesn't fit your theological beliefs. Unbelieveable.... Like he said, the burden of proof is on you to show how it actually should be translated, that is if you even have an understanding of the original language.

Your biggest problem, as a calvinist, is that 2 Peter 3:9 says "not counseling that any should perish." God's "boule" will is His counsel, His determined purpose, His design. How then, according to calvinism, can God "not counsel" something? I thought according to your calvinistic beliefs, that God counseled EVERYTHING. I thought EVERYTHING was predetermined by God. I guess not....

[Rolf Ernst]

Amazing how arrogant you Arminians are. Each of you esteems himself a better translator of Scripture than those who have poured their whole lives into textual accuracy; but when their translations show your God dishonoring doctrines to be a lie, you think you can "translate" your way out of that. As for those who refer to"calvinistic" interpreters--if you knew anything about the care taken in translating the various versions, you would know that these translations are not done by one individual, nor by men of only one doctrinal persuasion. They are agreed upon by men of differing theological persuasions and guess what--none of them have seen fit to use YOUR makeshift evasion of the real meaning of 2 Pet. 3:9, which is born of an overweening and haughty estimate of your SUPERIORITY to all of them. 1 Tim. 2:3-8 and 2 Pet. 3:9 are not the only scriptures which you use to justify your heresy, and end up defeating it. There is more to come, much more!
Though he later goes astray on this text, Doggieduff is the only one who has come close to the truth. In post 55 on this thread, he states accurately the Boule is both His counsel and his determined purpose. I have not even begun to cite the MANY verses which show that when spoken of in other scriptures, boule, or its counterpart in the OT, is used of that will of his which is neverfailing in its execution.
And when I dare state my doubt of your SUPERIORITY in the scripture translation, he calls that an "idiotic statement." My, how you junior theologians safegaurd your (ha, ha) SUPERIORITY!

[godrulz]

There is certainly evidence in every translation of doctrinal bias in some verses. e.g. RSV liberal theology (water down virgin birth in Is. 7:14...young woman vs virgin); JW/WT and Deity passages; Jerusalem Bible with Catholic doctrinal bent/bias; Living Bible (Baptist= Taylor) is anti-charismatic in some verses; Calvinistic influence in verses in many translations since this is a predominant system held by many translators represented on a mixed committee).

There is value in Greek grammatical studies to clarify controversial nuances in English translations that differ. Textual criticism is also necessary to decide between MSS. Few of us are experts...a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...we cannot just compare 2 uses of a word...context, etc. must be weighed.

A simplistic English reading in one translation does not ensure proper understanding on some 'non-essential' verses (i.e. major, essential doctrinal truth is not disputed between credible translations).

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--There are MANY Bible chapters which deal mostly with other matters, yet have clear messianic prophecies set within them like diamonds. The content of Genesis 3, Isa. chapters 9,11, Psalm 89, 2, etc, etc, etc.
Therefore your objection that Proverbs is wisdom literature has no standing. As we say in Texas, "that old dog won't hunt."

Your attempt to link the Calvinist's view of Proverbs with the JWs
is faulty. Christ is the Wisdom of God as expressed in the covenant struck before the foundation of the world. He has many names according to His many sufficiencies. Concerning Wisdom, read 1 Cor 1:30--"But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God..." Don't overlook that "of HIM are you in
Christ Jesus." Of HIM (not of ourselves--it is God who makes men to differ). Read on to the 2nd chapter, verse 7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom WHICH GOD PREDETERMINED BEFORE THE AGES FOR OUR GLORY." (caps mine)
Not in His personal being, which is coeternal with the existence of the Father and the Spirit, but as the Wisdom of God, He was "brought forth" in the covenant of redemption--"according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of of the world." (Eph. 1:4) Therefore, the Arminian attempt to muddy the waters in Proverbs eight by making a false accusation against the Reformed view of that chapter by linking it to the JW heresy is a misrepresentation. The JWs think it refers to His being. The Reformed people know it refers to the bringing forth of Christ as the federal head of His people in the Covenant of Redemption.
Concerning federl ead--as an aside, I mention that the meaning of Christ's position as the head of the church is ANOTHER Bible truth which utterly destroys the Arminian heresy. See Romans 5, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-47
By your objection that Proverbs is wisdom literature, do you mean thereby to discount the validity of its words in speaking of Christ, do you mean to say that there are no prophecies of Christ in all the wisdom literature?

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Amazing how arrogant you Arminians are. Each of you esteems himself a better translator of Scripture than those who have poured their whole lives into textual accuracy;

Who has poured their whole life into textual accuracy? Do you know these translators personally?


but when their translations show your God dishonoring doctrines to be a lie, you think you can "translate" your way out of that.

Wrong. The order is actually reversed. My beliefs come from the accurate translation. That's why I'm not a calvinist.


As for those who refer to"calvinistic" interpreters--if you knew anything about the care taken in translating the various versions, you would know that these translations are not done by one individual, nor by men of only one doctrinal persuasion. They are agreed upon by men of differing theological persuasions

Wait, are you sure about this? You act as if you know the translators and know their background in education. I would trust someone whose greek knowledge came from the teachings of Wallace, much more than someone who's greek teaching came from, say Moulton. I have a sneaky suspicion you don't have the slightest bit of understanding of greek.

and guess what--none of them have seen fit to use YOUR makeshift evasion of the real meaning of 2 Pet. 3:9, which is born of an overweening and haughty estimate of your SUPERIORITY to all of them. 1 Tim. 2:3-8 and 2 Pet. 3:9 are not the only scriptures which you use to justify your heresy, and end up defeating it. There is more to come, much more!

The majority text agrees with our translation. That's probably the most accurate text of scripture we have today.

Though he later goes astray on this text, Doggieduff is the only one who has come close to the truth. In post 55 on this thread, he states accurately the Boule is both His counsel and his determined purpose. I have not even begun to cite the MANY verses which show that when spoken of in other scriptures, boule, or its counterpart in the OT, is used of that will of his which is neverfailing in its execution.
And when I dare state my doubt of your SUPERIORITY in the scripture translation, he calls that an "idiotic statement." My, how you junior theologians safegaurd your (ha, ha) SUPERIORITY!

You still didn't answer my question. (Which I'm beginning to notice happens rather frequently with you.) According to calvinism, God counsels EVRYTHING. He determines EVERYTHING. He predetermines EVERYTHING. If that's true, then 2 Peter 3:9 is not, because it clearly states that God DOES NOT COUNSEL something. How are you going to dance around this one?

[Rolf Ernst]

Doggieduff--I am not dancing around anything. It takes much more time to respond to and correct the errors of others than to just wail and make charges, so you be patient.
Concerning your post above, Yes, He does work ALL things after the counsel of His own will. (Eph 1:4.) Concerning all things, His determinate counsel, predetermination is involved.

Your saying, "...it clearly states that God does not counsel something" is an example of that being fulfilled precisely. Can you follow THIS??

What is NOT counseled is that any of those of whom the apostle is speaking "should perish." And accordingly, they DON'T. They don't
because He did not counsel that they should perish! But He DID counsel that all of them should come to repentance. And they do, fulfilling the purpose of His longsuffering.

The Arminian understanding of the text, as they love to use it, is that God doesn't want any single individual of mankind to perish. That understanding defies the most rudimentary processes of thought BECAUSE the longer He delays His return in judgment, the more there are who DO perish.

The only realistic understanding of this text is that the apostle is speaking of an "elect" number whom He is longsuffering toward, an "elect" number whom He is not willing that they should perish, but come to repentance. That is the ONLY understanding which is in full accord with the entire text. The Arminian understanding would have God deliberately taking, by His longsuffering, a measure which is continually self-defeating.

Again, the fact that He does not counsel that any should perish
is not in any way a reasdon for you to triumphantly say, "see, that proves that He does NOT counsel everything."

Snort! Of course not, doggieduff. Why would he counsel that to which His will is contrary?? He doesn't counsel it and, accordingly, it does not happen. But He DOES counsel that they all come to repentance, and they DO.

[Rolf Ernst]

To those of you who are impatient with my responses to your objections



Maybe I don't have as much time to spend on a keyboard as you do. There are many more of you than there are of me, and you all probably have more time to spend on the forum than I do.

Right now, I am in the process of showing that the verses which Arminians use to support their heresy do NOT do so, but militate against Arminianism. Soon, I will begin threads where Arminians can deal with Scriptures which Reformed people use to prove THEIR doctrinal position. We will then see who deals most honestly with
the verses which others put forth. All the debate to this point has been under misguided opposition of the Arminians. Soon, they can show their expertise at handling verses which, at first glance, seem to support a contrary doctrine. Get ready, all you Arminians.

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz---Your attempt to require that if Proverbs 8: 22-36 is about Christ then the text of Chapter nine must ALSO be is strange.
All the words of Scripture concerning Christ are like diamonds scattered through ALL the Scriptures. I never before heard anyone demand, for example, that if Isa. 10 doesn't have prophecy in it concerning Christ, then the claim that the ninth chapter does is insupportable.

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--Concerning Eph. 1 and what you refer to as a corporate election. I understand you maintain that primarily to posit an election which is ultimately determined by men rather than God. That is, you believe that God foresaw who in time would believe on Christ, and on the basis of seeing their decision for Christ, elected them. Is that right?
Be patient. I'll get back with you on this. Thanks

[smaller]

Hey Rolf

Do you know there is really NO DIFFERENCE between the Arminian and the Calvinist.

Their end results are NEARLY IDENTICAL. 95-99% of the population of humanity winds up being ETERNALLY TORTURED in EITHER CASE.

What's the difference on how they got there? Whether by adding one by one by one by one or two by two if the result of the calculation is THE SAME there is NO MATTER.

You guys should band up on the ONLY DOCTRINE you AGREE ON....

and that is THAT 95-99% of mankind WILL NOT RECIEVE forgiveness of sins and will burn in hell forever. This is the sole position of agreement.

Start from the point where you ALL AGREE and work your way out. If you see ALIKE in this point there will be a lot less fighting.

Then you can all focus on convincing that 1-4% of the population that you can make DOUBLE SONS OF HELL like yourselves.

enjoy!

smaller

[1Way]

Rolf – I don’t know greek, I’ve never studied it. I know how to reference “reference works” and compare contextual use pretty well. I am in no way presenting to you my scholarship or my translation, because I do not know how to read Greek. I am using your translation to demonstrate it’s own inconsistency an inaccuracy.

This all be done using the KJV with the rendering of 2Pet 3.9, “come to”.

Here is the text in question
2Pet 3.9

2Pe 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.
I did a search for all occurrences of the same word for “come to”. John 21.25 was the only other occurrence, although as Jeremy points out, the same word in different forms have other occurrences.

Here is John 21.25

Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
The negative idea is provided by an earlier word. Here is a Greek and Enlish interlinear to help you see the location of the words with the English equivalents.

Disclaimer: I think there are one or two letters in the font that differ from the font in my bible study program, so this text may be off in a letter here or there, but this example is not about letters but about word position and general word meaning to help the reader understand that the negation idea “not” is provided prior to the “could contain” idea. This is not a crucial nor disputed issue, but to simply demonstrate how informative a word comparison study can be.

Joh 21:25
estin de {AND THERE ARE} kai {ALSO} alla {OTHER THINGS} polla {MANY} osa {WHATSOEVER} epoihsen o {DID} ihsouv {JESUS,} atina {WHICH} ean {IF} grafhtai {THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN} kay en {ONE BY ONE,} oude {NOT EVEN} autonauton {ITSELF} oimai {I SUPPOSE} ton {THE} kosmon {WORLD} cwrhsai {WOULD CONTAIN} ta {THE} grafomena {WRITTEN} biblia {BOOKS.} amhn {AMEN.}
So by that we understand that the word behind the English words, “could not contain”, actually is the word kho-reh-o, which is Strong’s 5562, and contributes the idea “could contain”, not “could not contain”.

So here are those two verses again this time side by side, with the word in question highlighted in blue.

2Pe 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.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Now, so far, all I have shown you is that I can look up the same Greek word and compare two verses using the same word with the same voice tense mood according to my bible study program (the OnLineBible). The verses are all using the KJV, the Gree from the TR for searching and display only.

Now, this is my observation, it is not an argument I am making up. To examine the translation’s consistency, we can just look at the renderings to see how they come across. They are

“should come”
“could contain”

on the surface, they are both permitting ideas showing some ability of action.

Now, lets swap the rendering in the verses to see how the context fleshes things out. This is where the differences between these two renderings become more evident.

2Pe 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 could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books that should be written. Amen.

Earlier I started to mix up the idea “not” into my comparison and I apologize for that mistake, the thought that the would should not approach writing about God’s awesomeness should not enter the comparison. The “use” of the word in 2Pe 3.9 is in the positive and so to make an “apples to apples” comparison, we should render the use in John 21.25 in the positive as well, which is easily accommodated.

2Pe 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 could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I do not suppose that even the world itself should come to the books that should be written. Amen.
Findings
In 2Pe 3.9 the general idea of “could contain” is roughly “have room for” or “make room for” etc. so this idea seems to fit pretty good with the sense in which it is used.

But, when you look at John 12.25, it does not fit very well. Consider this rendering in terms of action. “Come to” is the idea of “approaching” or “arriving at”. But the idea being graphically displayed in John 21.25 is not so much “approaching” or “arriving”, it’s about “having enough room”, the whole world may not have enough room for all the books ... so it’s a word about “having” or “making room” or as the text was rendered “containing”, “could contain”.

Assessment
This swapping of renderings would make 2Pet 3.9 into a reasonable verse, but John 21.25 is problematic at best, because what in the world would it matter if the world could or could not approach these books? John is not talking about the issue of world wide access to these books, but rather the idea is all about the enormity of such books and that the world could not “have enough room for” them, it “could not contain” them.

Also, I grant that the contextual use of a word does not determine the words meaning per say, but it can give good indicator’s of it’s appropriate use, and by comparing alternate renderings it can become easier to see what aspects of the rendering fits and what does not. So what I just did does not exactly limit the scope of the meaning of this word, but it does serve to demonstrate the inconsistency of the translation and that it’s contextual use is not I agreement with the dubious rending in 2Pet 3.9. The rendering in John 12.25 fits both verses just fine so that rendering passes the test, but the rendering in 2Pet 3.9 does not fit John 12.25 very well. Such observation indicates a dubious rendering since it is a very poor fit/bad in John 12.25.

In conclusion
Thus, based upon the translator’s treatment of this same word, it is reasonable to assume that “make room” is better than “should come”, it certainly fits into each context much more clearly, while “come to” hardly fit’s John 12.25 at all.

Again this is going strictly by their own translation work, I am simply observing the noticeable inconsistency with what they submitted was the correct renderings, and how the Pet rendering does not compare well while the John rendering does just fine. So please don’t misunderstand what has been presented for your consideration. This is not mocking the translators per say. This is demonstrating their own inconstancy and how these two examples serve to invalidate “come to” and validate “could contain”, “make room for”, “to make room for”.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz---Your attempt to require that if Proverbs 8: 22-36 is about Christ then the text of Chapter nine must ALSO be is strange.
All the words of Scripture concerning Christ are like diamonds scattered through ALL the Scriptures. I never before heard anyone demand, for example, that if Isa. 10 doesn't have prophecy in it concerning Christ, then the claim that the ninth chapter does is insupportable.

I agree with your general statements, but these are not parallel examples. Each context (remote/immediate) must be looked at on its own merit. I understand the isolated Messianic verses. There is more continuity between Prov. 8;9 than Is. 7:14 and Is. 9:6 and all the verses between.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--Concerning Eph. 1 and what you refer to as a corporate election. I understand you maintain that primarily to posit an election which is ultimately determined by men rather than God. That is, you believe that God foresaw who in time would believe on Christ, and on the basis of seeing their decision for Christ, elected them. Is that right?
Be patient. I'll get back with you on this. Thanks

The sister organization in the US that I belong to in Canada (your Assemblies of God) does believe the Arminian view that God's foreknowledge knows who will be saved. Arminians maintain that this foreknowledge does not affect free will.

I have moved to the Open Theist camp. This view maintains free will. God purposes to elect a people for His name (Israel/Church). The atonement is efficacious for all who repent and believe. God does not know as a certainty from eternity past who will ultimately believe or reject Him (i.e. before they existed...in space/time God knows the hearts and inclinations of the individual). He knows possibilities as such and actualities/certainties when the free will moral choice is made. Things He purposes to bring to pass independent of other moral agents (e.g. creation, incarnation) He knows as a certainty.

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties= meticulous control)

No= Arminianism
Alternative (Open Theism)
(contingencies; free will for moral agents)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (based on decree/will)
Arminian (foreknow=certainties)

No= Open Theism (uncertainties; God is resourceful, creative, omnicompetent)

[1Way]

Godrulz – I think you erred, perhaps by granting too much to Rolf’s assesements when you said 1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever wil come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties= meticulous control)

No= Arminianism
Alternative (Open Theism)
(contingencies; free will for moral agents) Arminianism agree’s with God’s absolute foreknowledge of Calvinism, they just try to force “free will” into that scenario anyway. :radar:

I would have said. 1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism and Arminianism (exhaustive foreknowledge)

No= Open Theism (contingencies exist, along with sufficient foreknowledge) This point should not be over looked. I’m sure some Arminian’s hold to God’s foreknowledge in different ways, but that was not part of the split away from the Calvinism of many years ago, they accepted that God foreknows all things!

[godrulz]

I think you are right, as the bottom line, that for free will choices to be known as a certainty they would have to be predestined/caused vs foreknown (Calvinism). Arminians believe that God's foreknowledge is not a decree or causative and that free will is genuine. They see God as an 'eternal now' seeing all of a timeline (past, present, and future) all at once. Just like you watching and knowing about a planned or actual bank robbery does not mean that you caused it in any way, so God's foreknowledge supposedly does not influence our choices. This analogy breaks down since time is not a thing or place (God cannot be in the past and future at the same time since the future does not even exist to be known or 'there').

You and I rightly see the logical contradiction and absurdity of an omniscient being knowing as a certainty future free will choices of moral agents (exhaustive foreknowledge). This knowledge logically negates free will and leaves us with the same predicament as Calvinists. God knows possibilities and certainties/actualities as they are.

So I think I would leave my question as is, since Arminians do not believe that God decrees things from eternity past...He simply 'knows' them without decree. The end result is the same as you astutely observed (Calvinism is not identical to Arminianism...one emphasizes sovereign decree/will, and the other explains things with simple foreknowledge; both believe in exhaustive foreknowledge).

The Open View is the only one that biblically and philosophically resolves the dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's free will. There are 2 motifs with God knowing some of the future (He predestines things like creation, incarnation, cross, return), but some things are open (free moral choices, salvation, mundane choices).

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--thanks for your post to my question above (the 67th post in this thread). I believe I understand your view well enough now to speak of it without misrepresenting it. If I do misrepresent, call me on it.

Concerning your discussion with 1way--We Calvinists believe God's foreknowledge is based on the fact of His decree, which will, without fail, come to pass. He foreknows what will happen because He has decreed that it shall happen.

Basis for that in scripture: "I am God and there is none else. I am God, and there is none like me," Notice what He says next: "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." See the connection of His knowledge with His power to fulfill all His counsel. He knows what shall be because He has decreed what shall be. In the sequential order, it is counsel (or determination) followed by knowledge
"Foreknow" is also used to denote love from everlasting, as in Jer. 31:3. The use of "know" in the sense of love is not strange to the words of Scripture. Adam "knew" Eve, and she conceived. In Psalm one, "The LORD knows the way of the just, but the way of the ungodly shall perish." This verse is not speaking of bare knowledge, as if He knows (has knowledge of) the way of the just, but is ignorant of the way of the ungodly. Its meaning is that God loves the way of the just, but not the way of the ungodly. Therefore, the way of the ungodly shall perish.

[godrulz]

Rolf: The Isaiah passage is one of the favorites of Open Theists. We concur that God predestines and knows some things, but not all things. It is His ability, not foreknowledge, that ensures things come to pass that He purposes.

Dr. Gregory Boyd (Baptist) in "God of the Possible" does a masterful job of showing that there are 2 motifs in Scripture. The many verses that support predestination is one motif (closed future) in Scripture. The other motif (open future) is supported by many other verses that would not fit into the first category. He fairly exegetes verses used by Calvinists/Arminians.

God, in Isaiah, is different than the false gods because He has the ABILITY to bring things to pass that He declares. It is wrong to assume that every moral or mundane choice is meticulously controlled (this is not the only model of sovereignty).

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--What rates as mundane things which are not under His meticulous care?

I see things which I consider quite mundane under His sovereign rule, such as the life span of sparrows and the hairs of our heads (Mt. 10: 29,30); the life span of all--not merely in the beginning and end of them (as established bounds), but in the progression of them from breath to breath (Acts 17:26), and in all their possessions.
I consider the things spoken of in Acts 17: 25,26 to be among those things which are also spoken of in Heb. 1:3--"...upholding all things by the word of His power." which, I believe you would agree, speaks of even the continual upholding of the entire creation as in Col. 1: 16,17 "For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things and by Him all things consist."
As His works of creation encompass all things, so I believe that His providential care likewise encompasses all of His creation, the "consist" of Col. 1:17 meaning not merely the adhering of all things for the duration of their purposed existence, but also all the moment by moments of their existence.
I believe all of these are involved in the true biblical meaning of His omnipotence; that is, that His omnipotence, as John Calvin expressed it, is "not merely some slumbering power" by which He could do any feat of might which He pleased, but it i