Johnny Skeptic

Why should I have anything further to say about 2 Peter 3:9 since as I showed, even if you are right that the Bible teaches that God is willing that some people perish, you still lose on at least two counts. First of all, you would still have to reasonably prove that the writer of 2 Peter 3:9 was speaking for God and not for himself. This you cannot do. Second of all, I said:

Still, at http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm, there is an article by Rev. D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph. D., of the Bible for Today, Incorporated, that is titled 'Calvin's error of limited atonement.' There are numerous other evangelical Christain web sites that flatly reject your arguments. One is at http://www.allanturner.com/calbk_1.html. Another is at http://www3.calvarychapel.com/librar...s/fpocwafw.htm.

No rational being would choose to reveal AND conceal his specific existence and will. In addition, no mentally competent being would help people, hurt people, and kill people, and expect to get away with telling them that he loved them, that is, UNLESS he was trying to conceal his true intentions.

aa5874

The entire Christian Bible is meaningless if God, the Word, does not exist. You must first demonstrate that God is actually real, can hear, talk, see and can outperform a new born baby.

rhutchin

That is the underlying presumption of the Scriptures.

Neither citation says anything substantive about 2 Peter 3:9. You seem to be grasping for straws in the citations that you have referenced. At least, you are making an effort to discover what others think. It would be better if you started thinking for yourself.

rhutchin

Why?

aa5874

I was actually hoping you could help me. Don't you have a vast knowledge of the Lord and his place of abode?

Sauron

So?

* The underlying assumption of the Quran is that it is true.
* The underlying assumption of the Bhagavad-Gita is that it is true.
* The underlying assumption of the Greek myths is that the gods of Olympus are real.
* Etc. etc. etc.

You're trying to sneak your desired conclusion into the discussion, by disguising it as the underlying presumption of scripture - and thereby get everyone to accept it.

But if we took accepted the "underlying assumptions" of every document or oral tradition at face value and didn't ask for proof, we'd soon find out that we had accepted a whole host of contradictory and nonsensical assumptions. Ain't gonna happen.

You need to *prove* that underlying assumption. Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to accept it, any more than they would accept the other underlying assumptions about these other items listed above.

Sauron

Technically, you're wrong. In the sense of biblical criticism, it's far more than just reading, writing and understanding the language. From Carrier:

And it is not enough of a solution to merely learn Greek, for the meaning of allusions and words and grammatical constructions in 1st century Koine Greek is often inexorably tied to an understanding of how the language and associated ideas were used and understood in the 1st century. In other words, one must study Greek literature at the time, and social and economic and political history, and religious and philosophical history, to really start to grasp many of the nuances in the Greek. Wilson, for example, shows no knowledge of Greek rhetorical conventions of the 1st century in the passage analyzed above (or is deceitfully concealing such knowledge), and as I explained above, all Calvinists ignore the contextual significance of a letter being written under the Roman Empire. Proper interpretation requires such an understanding.

Trying to create wiggle room for yourself? I suppose that creationists do the same - they trot out the 1 or 2 biologists that are creationists, and somehow they believe that balances out the million or so biologists who accept evolution.

Johnny Skeptic

But not necessarily the ORIGINAL Scriptures. Why should anyone believe that 2 Peter 3:9 was part of the ORIGINAL Scriptures? Why would a God who wanted hundreds of millions of people to die without telling them about the Gospel message be interested in preserving the original Scriptures? Are you not aware that the Bible can easily be revised, taken to some remote jungle regions, and passed of as “the real thing” at least some of the time? Certainly no writings that can easily be revised and passed of as “the real thing” at least some of the time qualify as being inerrant. The claim that the Bible is inerrant is fraudulent. Many Christians are aware of this. The Secular Web has about 376 articles on inerrancy. I will enjoy debating inerrancy with you. I will refer to many of the Secular Web's articles, and I will use some of my own arguments as well.

So are you saying that the evangelical Christians who wrote those articles, including Rev. D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph. D., did not think for themselves? It is common and acceptable in debates to reference supportive and corroborative sources. What better supportive and corroborative sources are there for skeptics to use against fundamentalist Christians than evangelical Christians sources?

It is you who are grasping at straws. You have become evasive because you know that you are in trouble. All three articles, and many more like them that I did not mention, are from evangelical Christian web sites. The articles are about Calvinism, and they strongly oppose Calvinism. You are a Calvinist. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God IS NOT willing that ANY should perish. Many if not most Calvinists believe that God IS willing that some people perish. At http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...r_39_by_pa.php, you will find an article that is titled ‘Understanding 2 Peter 3:9 by Pastor John Samson.’ Samson is a Calvinist. Following are some excerpts from the article:

“Without doubt, 2 Peter 3:9 is the single most popular verse used to dismiss the reformed doctrine of election, bar none. Usually the meaning of the verse is assumed without taking any time to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. In fact, traditions are so strong that many do not even see the need to study the verse because they believe there is no need to do so. I have to admit that I did this for many years. Those most enslaved to their traditions are those who believe they do not have any. First of all then, let us read the verse in its context.”

So you see, rhutchin, the three articles that I mentioned DO pertain to 2 Peter 3:9 because they all OPPOSE Calvinism, and an important part of Calvinism is the claim that God IS willing that some will perish.

At http://theologicalmeditations.blogsp...-argument.html, you will find an article that was written by yet another evangelical Christian that SPECIFICALLY deals with 2 Peter 3:9. The article is titled ‘2Peter 3:9 and the Letterhead Argument.’ The writer believes that God IS NOT willing that any should perish. Following are some excerpts from the article:

“There are other arguments that they use to maintain that this passage references the decretal will of God, but let’s examine the logic of this letterhead argument.

“If the ‘us’ refers to the elect, then there are only three logical options. Either the ‘us’ is:

“1) All of the elect who will ever exist, whether born or not yet born

“2) All of the unbelieving elect presently existing on earth, or

“3) All of the believing elect presently existing on earth

“These are important distinctions to keep in mind when examining the usage of the term ‘elect’ in theological and exegetical argumentation. Equivocations can occur in arguments, and the significant distinction between virtual and actual union can be easily blurred. This is more common than some think.

“In what follows, I will seek to argue that all three options are exegetically and theologically absurd. The ‘context’ does not argue for the letterhead argument used by some. In fact, the term ‘context’ is often employed when people are merely importing systematic assumptions into the interpretation of scripture. These assumptions determine what the alternatives are, and what is theologically allowable. Let’s pull off the contextual mask, weigh the letterhead argument in the balance, and see if it is exegetically wanting.”

At http://ids.org/blog/?p=191, you will find an article by Steve Lehrer that is titled ‘A Disagreement Between Calvinistic Brothers: Interpreting 2 Peter 3:9 pt. 2 by Steve Lehrer.’ Following are some excerpts from the article:

“In my last post I introduced this subject and dealt why I disagreed with Pastor John Sampson’s point that 1 Peter and 2 Peter are written to the elect (made up of believers and unbelievers who will become believers) as opposed to simply believers. John tried to establish his case in part from 1 Peter 1:1-3. He did this to support his interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9. Now, for the next few posts on this subject, I would like to turn my attention to what James White wrote about 2 Peter 3:9—James and John both take the same position on that verse. Someone recently sent me a blog entry from James White of Alpha and Omega ministries (www.aomin.org) that was about a Calvinistic interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9. I must admit that I am a fan of James White. He is super smart and has put out some amazing resources on apologetics and reformed theology that have been very helpful to me and many others. I also know James personally and he is a very nice and very funny guy. So, for all of you James White fans out there, I am a fan as well. But even fans disagree with those that they often cheer for. I have a different take on 2 Peter 3:9 than James that I believe is still completely compatible with the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.”

“Before you get all hot and bothered about my view, I thought it might be helpful to show you that Calvin himself agrees me (I suppose I should say that I agree with Calvin!). In his commentary on 2 Peter, Calvin writes about 2 Peter 3:9 as follows:

“‘Not wishing that any should perish. This is His wonderous love towards the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety. We must notice the order, that God is prepared to receive all men into repentance, so that none may perish. These words indicate the means of obtaining salvation, and whoever of us seeks salvation must learn to follow this way.

“‘It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His loving-kindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world’ (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 12, pg. 364).

“Now simply because Calvin interpreted 2 Peter 3:9 this way does not mean that Calvin is right and it does not mean that Calvin is being consistent in viewing 2 Peter 3:9 this way and holding to the five points of Calvinism (as Calvin’s soteriology was later to be summarized and dubbed). But, we must not say that Calvin’s interpretation is not Calvinistic! Just in case Calvin is not enough theological weight for you, reformed theological giant John Murray also holds to the view I am presenting here. John Murray writes:

“The language of the clauses [in 2 Peter 3:9], then, most naturally refers to mankind as a whole as men faced with the issues of death or life before the day of judgment comes. It does not view men either as elect or as reprobate, and so allows that both elect and reprobate make up the totality in view (John Murray, Collected Writings, Vol. 4 pg. 130).
¼br /> I have two very big Calvinistic noses to count as holding to my view of 2 Peter 3:9. It doesn’t prove that I am right, but it should give reformed folks who go with another view reason to pause and consider it and it should caution them from lumping this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 with Arminianism.”

At http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=107, you will find another evangelical Christian web site that disagrees with you. Following are some excerpts from the article:

“David Cloud Refuted (Part 1. 1Timothy 2:4)
We begin our series on David Cloud’s proof texts against Calvinism in his article titled, ‘Some major false doctrines that are a danger to Bible-Believing Churches today.’ Here is the first statement that he purports to contradict Calvinism,

“The Bible says that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2 Pet. 3:9).

“The second proof text that he cites in this statement is 2 Peter 3:9, which has been dealt with in a previous article. In this article we turn out attention to 1 Timothy 2:3-5,

“3. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4. who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

“I need to say a few words about how Arminians approach this text before I provide an exegetical objection to Cloud’s interpretation. Next to 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4 is by far the most cited verse that Arminians use against Calvinists. The intention behind quoting, “who wants all men to be saved,” is to throw water on any idea that God has elected individuals to be saved, and to deny a particular intention in the atonement, as well as deny any notion that God has a special salvific love for his children.

“Arminians start with the human-centered assumption that if God does not love all people undifferentiated, then he would be unjust to love some more than others. The Calvinist begins with the Biblical principle that because man is unworthy of grace and deserving only of death, God in his holiness, wisdom, and freedom chooses to love and elect any creature he desires. I often ask Arminians whether God is just to destroy all the people in the world. The answer is usually ‘yes.’ Then I ask, if so, can God be merciful and choose to elect some to be saved? Here is where they balk.

“Why do they commit this blatant inconsistency? Arminians believe that ‘grace’ is only grace if it’s given to all people. Yes, I know what you are thinking, ‘But that defeats the very meaning of grace.’ Exactly, grace is undeserved. If God in his freedom chooses to give one person electing grace, he is not required to give someone else this same grace. ‘But that’s not fair!’ someone may object. That’s right, it’s not fair - it’s called grace. We don’t want God to be fair. We want him to be merciful. If God were fair with us, we would all get our just due: to perish eternally in our sins.”

Rhutchin, you can argue against your fellow fellow Christians all that you want to, but it won’t get you anywhere. ALL supportive and corroborative sources are acceptable in debates, and I will continue to partly use Christian sources against you. You can try to change my approach if you wish, but it won’t work. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Internet articles that were written by Christians who oppose Calvinism. You can find many of those articles by typing 'Calvin was wrong' into Google.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following from the EofG Forum, which you conveniently DID NOT reply to:

Actually, the hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing about the Gospel message because God did not want them to hear about it were at a decided disadvantage. Human effort never has been, and never will be sufficient to let everyone know about the Gospel message, which is just as your unmerciful God intends for it to be. Following your own same line of reasoning, if no one wanted to share the Gospel message with anyone, no one would ever get saved. How utterly absurd. That would be like saying that if a lifeguard at a beach refused to save drowning people, no one else should bother to save drowning people. Get this: Decent people make themselves available to help out when indecent people refuse to do so.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that no one would know about his specific existence and will except through human effort. If he does exist, if he has good character, he would not go out of his way to make it appear to billions of people that human effort alone has accounted for the spread of Christianity.

Of course, you lose hands down no matter what because no God who does not want everyone to be saved is worthy of being accepted. In fact, no rational minded and fair minded person is able to will himself to endorse favoritism, unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, hypocrisy [the Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people], and God revealing himself to some people who reject him, while refusing to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he [supposedly] exists. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he was aware that the being who delivered the message exists.

If a man had two children who were drowning, and refused to try to save both of them, he would be ostracized from society, even from Christian society, and he would possibly be convicted of negligence and sent to prison. If an ordinary man were willing to suffer and die for some people (some skeptics are willing to suffer and die for some people), and killed some people (God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers, and babies), he would be considered irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the behavior of a God be considered any differently?

[Edit: Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Is it your position that such detestable behavior if fair, necessary, and serves a useful purpose?]

rhutchin

You are misunderstanding context of this discussion. The underlying context of the Bible is that men wrote as they were moved by God to write so that everything in the Bible can be (and should be) read in context with everything else in the Bible. This means only that a person takes the information in verse A to be provided by God as well as the information in verse B. Both sets of information would then be taken to be non-contradictory within the context of the Bible.

Whether the information provided in verses A and B is true is not an issue here. The issue is the manner in which a person is to understand that which the Bible says. We do not have to assume that the information in the Bible is true to understand it; only that all the information comes from one source so that it does not contradict itself (which would explain why so much time and effort is devoted by some to find contradictions).

Consequently, it is not necessary to "prove" that God is the source of the information we find in the Bible. If God is the source, then verse A will not contradict verse B so we can put both together and derive soem alleged truth. If God is not taken to be the source of the information in the Bible, then it really does not matter what the Bible says. So, we take God as the source, determine what the Bible says, and then we we have something to work with to determine its truth.