whosoever will

Very well put. I had forgotten that the current view of justice is common to postmodernist thinking.

 

Because of the Cross of Calvary no one is overlooked. The provision of Jesus' atonement [I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2 & I John 5:13 means that no sinner deserves the flaming fires of Hell. Believing in Christ emancipates one from so horrible a destination.

 

First of all, 1 Tim 2.6; 1 John 2.2 and 5.13 is NOT universal, those verses are being given to the "Children of God" in context in 1 John. and in 1 Tim 2:6 again the context is all "types". This is a classic eisegesis of the text. AND NOWHERE does it ever say in these verses that because what Jesus did, man does not deserve hell.

The key to what Ray said is "believing in Christ emancipates one from hell"... this is absolutely true. But this is AFTER the fact of one beleiving. Before this we are all condemed to hell and deserve it!

If a warden decides to pardon a prisoner worthy of death, that does not mean that the freed prisoner and all the other prisoners still don't DESERVE their punishment for their actions or everyone gets to be freed. The Judges condemnation still demands wrath upon the prisoners. Jesus Christ died to save the ones he elected not the "whole world". This is an error of eisegesis from the MANY ways John uses "the world" and "all" ... There are 8 ways the word "all" is used in the Bible and VERY rarely does it mean universally. And "kosmos" is used mostly AS A GROUP OR KIND! Even in Ray's example of 1 John 2 just acouple of verses down John writes that in verse 15 "do not love the WORLD".. does that mean we are to hate every person in the world? NO! It is the SYSTEM of the world. And in verse two it is the CHOSEN... the CHILDREN OF GOD spread abroad to which he is writing to.

In reference look at Rev 5:9-10 (Which John also wrote). Christ purchased with His blood for God ... what?... MEN from every tribe and tongue and people and nation... not ALL men. Also look at John 11.49-52 he died for a group not ALL. This is paralleling what he means in John 2 by what he means by "the whole world".

Also and probably most important... If you take 1 Tim 2:4 to mean "all" than in context you have to take that Christ mediates for all in verse 5. And then it follows that Christ FAILS as mediator every time a person negates His work by thier all-powerfull free will? One could hope that no biblical scholar would ever promote such and idea, for anyone familiar with the relationship between atonement, mediation and intercession in the book of Hebrews knows well that to make such an assertion puts the entire arguement of Hebrews 7-10 on its head. It is more consistent with biblical theology to recognize that Christ mediates in behalf of the elect and PERFECTLY saves them than it is to assert that Christ mediates for all (but fails to save all).

MY Christ that I put my assurance in SAVES me. I would hate to put it in a mediator that can fail...hmmm a God that can fail?...

 

This is where I post the Calvinist future scenario and then when the question is asked "Couldn't You have DONE something?" -- I quote you in response.

Aside from that - you miss the main flaw in Calvinism - which is that in order for your "I don't have to be fair" idea to work - God has to ALSO promise not to speak as He has spoken in scripture about the fact that HE claims HE "is NOT willing that ANY should perish". When He says HE is the "savior of the World" we can believe it.

See? -- we have the Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But as we have poitned out, calvinists don't disagree with either of those verses. Again, please debate the real opponent, not one you have made up. We believe both of those.

 

Come on Bob.... Context, context, context....
God is not willing that ANY should perish?... This is only made in passing while the topic was The coming of Christ and why He is delaying it...
First rule of thumb in exegesis is Who (Peter) was writing.. next.. To WHOM.... 1:1-3 CLEARLY says it is to those who have the same faith (believers) ... When he talks about the mockers he refers to them in the third person "them". BUT when he talks to his audience he writes "beloved" and "your" in verse 13 he includes himself "we". Thus when the audience is identified, verse 9 is easily understood by Peter stating "you" that he refers to his audience. And language limits then the "any" and "all" to refer to the "you" (believers)... So God is patient...why?.. there is a number (an elect) and He won't come back till all of His elect are saved... then the return...

Well.. we went over 1 Tim 2.4 and 2 Peter 3:9...
should I anticipate the last of the 3 verses Armenians use and answer it to save you some typing??... Matt 23:37 ? It's the only one you have left...

It's not talking about salvation and the unwillingness was on the part of the Pharisees not willing to let thier "children" (followers) to go after Him... It is NOT a sotierlogical context...

Also all the pleas of God to Israel to follow Him is another thing to trip on ... Luther quenched this quite well by showing the elemental understanding of language between "imperative and indicative" and how even school boys know better than to confuse the two and could only be muddied by prideful, biased scholars that don't want the facts to get in the way of their biased presuppositions... De Servo Arbitrio...

Post tenebras lux

Sola Deo Gloria

 

Rc - nice arguments but you limited the language to the elect who are unsaved; that actually puts them squarely on the other side - those evil them
there are no unsaved but still good.


However as I was wandering thru Strongs as I am apt to do - the word pas does not seem to limit itself save in one way

2) collectively
2a) some of all types

I read this and I go hrm their is a faint possibility here - but as I run down the all through its roots - I get the concept of universal call - but failed response on the part of man - which damns him

plus we got that funky present tense theme running thru - then people who would tend to agree with you suddenly for one word throws us back into past tense, back to present - and then we hit the fun stuff the aorist tense

however the voice and mood indicate that the any and all play a part in their perishing and coming

and even then I have a reasonable suggestion that he is actually broadening the context at this point and narrows it back down thru the verses until he tightens it up clearly at verse 13

so I with very little effort say - nope you got the verse wrong - God desires 2 things that not any should perish(God does not desire damnation for anyone - so sorry universal - unless you can show me a verse where God glories in the destruction of the wicked) and that all should come to repentance(universal)

I actually have more to type but I have to go give a lesson

 

God does not "Glory" in the wicked but He is GLORIFIED in it, for it demonstrates His holiness. For He is not only to be worshiped as a God of Love but holiness.
I'm sorry on your understanding on 2 Peter but context and the grammer of who his audience is does limit all. Exuse Peter for not saying "ALL of us", but the grammer demands it by context. He is not talking to everyone in the world but to the elect of the present and future.

Also you should understand the tapestry of desire and will.... the desire of God IS His will. If He "desires" that none should persish... NONE shall perish... For a biblical and not humanistic understanding of desire please read Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections.

 

Im currently in Vietnam and the concept of an English book - is How to learn English

*sigh* yes God is sovereign - so Ill have to bring out the old hacks

did God desire/will that man should sin?
No His desire was for a perfect relationship - but inasmuch we were created in His image endowed with certain gifts - WE messed it up

God did not will or want sin to exist

does God desire/will evil?

No - but then again in our fallen state - we perpetrate almost constantly so a loving active God turns that evil into good by His sovereign power.

Did God desire/will Moses to disobey and strike the rock?
No

Did God desire/will that His chosen people reject Him and slaughter His prophets?
No

His desire and His Will are different in areas in that I use the "2" or "3" "will" model

sovereign-moral (non-elect)
sovereign-moral-individual (elect)

The grammar does not demand it by context; as I suggested that verse is a starting point whereby for a short section the people referred to are widened again and narrrowed in the context of his audience

and you have to prove that the church is made solely of the elect which is an offensive doctrine.

Justice and Mercy are equal in God - randomly picking people to be saved because of the sacrifice of Jesus - when that sacrifice is capable of saving all, beggars His mercy and makes God's justice a twisted lie

Far better for God that we all go to hell that we deserve then His character be slandered and His mercy be made incapable of reaching all

 

Yes, in a very real sense, God did will that man should sin. He did not make man sin, but you cannot get around the fact that God foreknew everything before creating anything. He created Adam and Eve knowing exactly what they would do, and God even provided the means - satan - by which they would disobey. You must know that satan cannot do ANYTHING without God's permission. God allowed satan in the garden, knowing full well what satan would do and how Adam and Eve would respond. So while God did not MAKE Adam and Eve disobey and bring about the fall, thus creating a world of spiritually dead people who sin by nature, it was obviously God's intention that it be so.

Why would He do this? Personally, I believe He did it because that's the only way for God to achieve what you say next...

In my opinion (and this is just opinion, though I believe it is backed up by scripture, which I'll quote in a moment), we cannot have a perfect relationship with God without knowing ALL of His attributes. One of those attributes is God's righteous wrath, and God cannot display His wrath without objects of wrath.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Yes and no. In one sense, God did not want Moses to disobey. In another sense, God knew Moses would disobey and willed that it would happen (permissive will) because that was part of His picture of Christ. The first time Moses struck the rock, it poured out water (symbolic of the living water made possible by the crucifixion of Jesus). The second time, Moses was commanded to speak to the rock, because striking it again would be symbolic of crucifying Jesus again. If Moses had not struck the rock the second time, however, we would not have the lesson in the text that it is abominable that Jesus should be crucified again. It was such a serious offense that Moses was not allowed into the promised land. That was a lesson God wanted to teach, so it was, in a very real sense, God's will that Moses would disobey.

To say that God is not willing that any (meaning anyone who ever lived, lives, or will live) perish, yet some perish, is to say God is incapable of saving all. To say that God is not willing that any perish (any of us, the beloved elect, as the text demands) is to say that none of us (the elect) will perish - thus saying that God's will cannot be thwarted. Those who perish do so because they are not the elect, not because God's will is not accomplished.

 

This sounds like the way secular determinists (evolutionists) believe. We are just a conglomeration of our experiences and chemicals and choose nothing.

 

NPET. ...

Read De Servo Arbitrio...

You can't substite the indicative with the imperative .... Like Lutehr said "Schoolboys know the difference, only teachers that don't want the facts to get in the way of their biased presuppositions muddy the waters.

 

rc said:

rc, on the day that Bob and Ray Berrian agree to take 1 Peter 3:9 in context, I will have the moist, glistening shining eyes of Perdue as he watch his chickens grow meatier.

 

rc, on the day that Bob and Ray Berrian agree to take 1 Peter 3:9 in context, I will have the moist, glistening shining eyes of Perdue as he watch his chickens grow meatier. </font>[/QUOTE]ROFL!

 

rc, on the day that Bob and Ray Berrian agree to take 1 Peter 3:9 in context, I will have the moist, glistening shining eyes of Perdue as he watch his chickens grow meatier. </font>[/QUOTE]

Finally some content!

 

Which is precisely what makes it so devastating to Calvinism.

God "is NOT willing that ANY should perish" INSTEAD of saying "God is not willing that CERTAIN people should perish" or "God still has a few ELECT people yet to save". The fact that delay is needed to effect "repentance" is devastating against Calvinism.

As you point out - the DELAY is needed for TIME to elapse so that those who have not yet accepted the Gospel - may do so. This is very much an ARMINIAN idea. In consistent Calvinism God would ALREADY have pithed the brains of all He WANTED to save they would ALREADY have "come to repentance" by divine mandate alone.

In Arminianism you "need time to effect repentance". In Calvinism you do not. In Calvinism God ALONE sets the timing and if you have a problem with the timing - take it up with God. In Arminianism you would need to WAIT - but in Calvinism God does not WAIT FOR GOD.

Indeed - to those who ALREADY repented and are ALREADY saved. It is NOT for them that God is DELAYING or WAITING so that they can come to repentance. Rather they are the ones to whom God gives this explanation!

Calvinists constantly try to employ circular arguments here such that the ones God is writing TO are the ones He is Waiting ON to be saved.

The simple truth is - the unsaved are NOT reading 2Peter 3.

Indeed Christ says He WANTED to save them - but charges "YOU WOULD NOT". Here is clearly a CLASH between the intent and WILL of God vs the intent and will of man. In Arminianism such a conflict truly exists. In Calvinism it is impossible for God to REALLY WANT something but to claim that man in any way stopped Him. God ALONE is sovereign and HE ALONE determines what will and will not happen. Man plays no part in it. God could never complain "Well I WANTED to but man would not have it".

That only exists in the Arminian model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

*hooking back to rc's reponse*

Then God is the author and originator of sin

for if all is by His will and that He willed that man should sin - who is man that we should resist His will

God told us not to sin - but then makes us do so by His will

There has to be an element of choice - lest evil spring from the foot of the throne of God

God is sovereign - Most assuredly
Man has a choice - Regretfully

One does not preclude the other - in that God's sovereignty is so grand that no matter what we choose - He has a plan for it. He is not waiting at the end of time - it having all played out.

He is here now chopping and twisting threads so that according to His plan the final destination is arrived at.

After all God uses many things to influence our decisions

1. If its raining are you going to go to an amusement park
2. If traffic is heavy will you take a certain route
3. If your child is sick will you not tarry at least a little while to comfort him/her?

God uses circumstances to influence our choices - but He because of His divine decree NEVER actively subsumes the will of man - He demands that we do that ourselves.

 

Bob, you're way off. As we've pointed out countless times, the context of the verse is simple.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all should come to repentance.

In other words, Jesus will not return until the full number of elect have been born, found, and saved. That elect were determined to be saved before creation, but they must still be born and go through the process, because that is how God works out His plan. If Jesus returns before all the elect have been saved, then those elect will never be born, and never be saved. That goes against the premise that "All the Father has given me will come to me" since some of those the Father has given Jesus have not yet been born.

Therefore, the fact that Jesus has not yet returned does not mean that He is slack concerning His promise. He is simply not willing that any [of us, the elect] perish, but that ALL are brought in.

A similar concept is where it says in the Bible that salvation will return to the Jews after the full number of Gentiles has come in. In other words, God has planned exactly how many of the Gentiles are among the elect, and who they are. When that full number has come in and the time of the Gentiles is over, then salvation will return to the Jews. (This does not mean, of course, that no Jews are now saved, and it does not mean that no Gentiles will be saved after the "full number" has come in, but that as of right now God's working out of His plan is primarily focused on the Gentiles, after which it will be primarily focused on the Jews again.)

 

Npet ...
I think this is a forum for good ol' common sense boy's and confused city folk... (ha) ..
I was born in Joplin...