John Owen On 2 Peter 3:9

All truth is God's truth. That is accepted as fact across the board theologically. I don't know what you're problem is with that.

 

I never claimed to have a problem with that. Please re-read my question and address that point rather than attempting to restate something we all agree upon as if it answers the question posed.

 

Yes- if what Owen says is truth it is God's truth and just as true as the truth in the Bible. There is no measuring stick for truth. It is either true or not true.

The Bible is the most reliable source of truth because God said so.

But that I am now typing on my keyboard is just as true as the truth that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Truth is truth.

 

But, when one is left here on earth to discover who is telling "God's truth" when it appears that "Owen's truth" conflicts with "Adam Clarke's truth" as they both attempt to interpret and understand "Paul's truth" I just want to ask what makes us have confidence that "Paul's truth" is equal to "God's truth," since Paul writing was decreed by God like Owen's was.

Luke, what I'm getting back to is the distinction between the active and permissive decrees of God. The inspiration of scripture is an active decree of God in that God is actively intervening Himself to ensure His message is given. The writing of a Christian novel or commentary is permissive in that He would allow for misunderstanding and mistakes. I was just hoping this distinction might come to the surface by looking at this point.

 

Because God says it is and causes his own to believe it.

God also intends for there to be falsehood in the world.

For example:

I Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Yea, and I think you have a good point here, Skan.

My understanding of God's permissive decree is when he brings evil to pass BY removing his moral influence from it.

By so doing he is not the proximate cause of evil- he is passive in its existence. But that he intended for it to come to pass is clear.

So the reliability of something as true or not true is in direct proportion to the presence or lack thereof of his moral influence.

 

Many of the cited commentators seem to be making an effort to rewrite the text according to Calvinism. So lets start with the NASB,

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentence."

Seems quite clear, the Lord has delayed His return and judgment to allow us, born again believers who have eternal life and therefore cannot perish, to help win more of the lost so they, the lost will not perish, but come to repentence.

You do not need to be a theologian to discern this obvious truth.

 

The Bible teaches the "priesthood" of all believers, we do not need "theologians" to misrepresent scripture. Nor do we need folks who tell us we need "their experts" to explain it to them. Its called the "reformed view."

And also note the generalized statement referring to context, as if the view I presented did not reflect context. But no specific statement concerning the context was provided, expect by me. In summary, the response questions my qualifications and appeals to an unstated argument. And that is how Calvinism must be defended, because it has no actual basis in scripture.

 

They believe that God willed to save every human being without exception and that something beyond his control happened so as to defeat his eternal purpose .

If you believe this strawman represents the actual non-Calvinist view, I have a bridge for sale. God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. But He desires this according to His purpose and plan. Thus His purpose and plan are not being defeated, but are being fulfilled. For God so loved the world of fallen mankind that He gave is one of a kind Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Love does not demand its own way. God is love.

 

We do not defend anything...we just stay with the scripture. No defence needed.

 

Oh yea.....:smilewinkgrin: You must have problems understanding Scripture then. I could start listing many noted theologians who would disagree with that logic point but of course you would discredit them....but I also dont think Skan, Allan & Webdog would have the .....no not going there but needless to say I'm fairly certain they would also disagree with your statement.

 

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; I assume 1st Peter was the first epistle he wrote to these people. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

strangers παρεπίδημος parepidēmos one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives

scattered διασπορά diaspora a. of Israelites dispersed among foreign nations
b. of the Christians scattered abroad among the Gentiles
In chapter 8 of Acts the Christians that were scattered abroad went to Judaea and Samaria. I don't think that is who Peter was writing to.

Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

He divorced the house of Israel not the house of Judah.

Ezekiel 36:19 And I scattered them(The house of Israel) among the heathen,(Gentiles) and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein no pleasure.

Christ came unto his own, the house of Judah and they received him not.
He was of the tribe of Judah.

He said he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. By God's own word where were they. Among the Gentiles, heathen. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this foldthe house of Judah) them (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, [and] one shepherd.
A T Robertson on flock: Christ's use of "flock" (poimnh) here is just another metaphor for kingdom. Compare with Ezekiel 37:22,24 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

for since the fathers fell asleep. His fathers and their fathers. Paul to the
Corinthians 1 C 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

The house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

 

Calvinism does not understand scripture. I read it straight up. No need to twist it so it says the opposite of what it says. God desires all men to be saved, means, drum roll please, God desires all men to be saved. It does not mean God desires all men [He chose before creation individually] to be saved. Which means God does not desire all men to be saved. Which twists scripture. With Calvinism, hundreds of scriptures are rewritten, and word meanings altered to create the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

I agree God wants all men to be saved.

 

Of course then by your reckoning Percho, all men ARE saved, correct?

 

If God wants all men ....to be saved....
and all men are not saved......

Is God not the one who saves?
or....God wants them to be saved, but cannot save them?
If all men are not saved.....is salvation up to the man then ,in your view.
or somehow it is still up to God?

Do men save themselves,or damn them selves?

Some have sadly posted that God has ......done all that He can! Do you believe that God has done all that He can?

Why do you pray for God to save someone, if He has done all that He can?


To say you agree that God wants ALL men to be saved...and yet they are not...begs the question...who is in charge,God or man?

 

Even Calvinists affirm that God desires for all to be saved in that He doesn't take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked. Piper explains this in an article called "The two wills of God."

Actually, you are the one begging the question by presuming that in our view God is not in charge. Yet, if it was God's will to give man free will then God wouldn't be in any "less charge" than if God's will was to save a select few. Either way, we are arguing that God's will was done, we just disagree as to what that will was, thus you commit the fallacy of question begging by presuming our view makes man in charge.

 

I personally think we to often think of saved as in past when we should think future.

Jesus the Christ did that by which we shall be saved. There is a reason Paul's blessed hope was connected with the coming of the Lord. God is in the saving business and I have no clue how many he intends to save. This I do know.

And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Notice heirs not inheritors. Salvation?

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore;

That's a lot of stars and a lot of sand.

 

I believe God has just began!

 

began what? I am not sure how this response fits the questions asked.
can you clarify it a bit more?

Skan;
[QUOTEEven Calvinists affirm that God desires for all to be saved in that He doesn't take pleasure in the perishing of the wicked][/QUOTE]

Agreed that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked....but that does not address the issue in that you still claim a slightly wounded adam, while the bible declares dying thou shalt surely die!