# Hypothetical perishing and 2 Peter 3:9



## Hilasmos (May 18, 2010)

I concur with the common exegesis of 2 Peter 3:9 that understands the patience of God being towards his beloved elect. It is this patience which allows them to reach repentance (grants the time) and therefore not perish.

My wrangling with this passage has to do with the hypothetical problem that it presents. If it is in reference to "those of faith"/elect, it only carries weight if in fact the elect could perish (if it were not for the sovereign willing that they reach the state of repentance). I realize that it can only be hypothetical since God wills that they reach this state prior to the porousia (and "all that the Father gives Me will come to Me"), which is the point of the passage.

Yet, at the same time, many would grant that the elect, who die in infancy, or some other condition which deters natural ability to reach repentance, do not perish. So, what is the difference between these types of people and an elect person that has not reached repentance yet but is in the natural condition to do so?

I just cannot wrap my head around how some can be saved despite not having reached repentance during their time on earth, by the death of Christ; and, then, how the willfully unrepentant elect person cannot be saved (hypothetically), by that same death of Christ, unless he reaches this state of repentance. The former is saved by the efficacy of the atonement alone (and so is the latter, but the reaching of repentance is a necessary condition, if not, there would be no threat of perishing). 

So what does it mean to say that an elect person could really and actually perish, hypothetically speaking? Hope that makes sense.


----------



## ACBRown (May 18, 2010)

You've raised an interesting question. As for myself, I've thought a lot about the whole hypothetical perishing aspect of our salvation, but I cannot say that I've thought about it in relation to infants. Good question. 

I suppose the simple answer lies somewhere in the volitional capabilities of an infant. Apparently the atonement can be applied to them without mature faith, but neither can they willfully reject, or wander, etc. This doesn't fully address your question, as you are then concerned with the why question of the whole adult hypothetical perishing thing. 

I think we can say at least this, however: The covenantal bond an adult shares with Christ was entered by faith. That faith must ultimately persist (albeit an imperfect faith) in order to remain in the Vine. God is gracious with His sheep, thus preserving them, and causing them to persevere in that faith. Apparently the infant is the recipient of that same sovereign grace, but it is administered within a different set of circumstances. Both require God to graciously grant all they need.

Now why God would so order things the way He has is akin to the other big questions we share about His dealings. They are somewhat mysterious. But we know that His ways are wise. He has proven that time and time again. And we know that His reasons for doing certain things ultimately magnify His Name, demonstrate His attributes, and play a role in a larger picture whereby He is making an important point (Think of Ephesians 3:10 in this regard). 

Is that helpful?

Austin


----------



## Poimen (May 19, 2010)

It is not hypothetical. According to our Reformed fathers an elect person could and would perish if God suffered to withdraw His Holy Spirit from them. Consider these words from Article 3, of the 5th Head of the Canons of Dordrecht:*

*


> Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources.


Yet all those whom God has elected unto eternal life will infallibly come to repentance as you have correctly surmised from 2 Peter 3:9. The reason is because God decreed that they not fall away which means that they _must_ be united to Christ and receive all His benefits by faith. This union with Christ assumes repentance which is a gift given as a consequence of Christ's mediatorial work. (cf. CD, 1.7)

With regards to infants and others whom we deem incapable of repentance, we must assume that they do not have, as you state the natural ability to repent. Which, by the way is, as a basic statement, correct since _none_ (adult or otherwise) have the ability to repent from their own, fallen nature. 
(1 Corinthians 2:14) But these infants, like us, have been condemned without their knowledge (by original sin) and may be saved without their knowledge if God so decrees and gives them repentance, no matter how difficult it is for us to believe that this can be so. After all, is God's arm too short to save? I think not. (Isaiah 50:2) Besides, can not a child (or infant) express childlike trust in the Lord? I think so. (Psalm 22:10) Why not, then, repentance?


----------



## Iconoclast (May 19, 2010)

There is no hypothetical as God has predestined the elect to be conformed to the image of the Son.

TER 10; OF EFFECTUAL CALLING 

Paragraph 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;2 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving to them a heart of flesh;4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6 
1 Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10,11; 2 Thess. 2:13,14 
2 Eph. 2:1-6 
3 Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:17,18 
4 Ezek. 36:26 
5 Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:27; Eph. 1:19 
6 Ps. 110:3; Cant. 1:4 

Paragraph 2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature,7 being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit;8 he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.9 
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8 
8 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:5; John 5:25 
9 Eph. 1:19, 20 

Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 
10 John 3:3, 5, 6 
11 John 3:8 

Paragraph 4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.14 
12 Matt. 22:14, 13:20,21; Heb 6:4,5 
13 John 6:44,45,65; 1 John 2:24,25


----------



## Hilasmos (May 19, 2010)

Poimen said:


> It is not hypothetical. According to our Reformed fathers an elect person could and would perish if God suffered to withdraw His Holy Spirit from them. Consider these words from Article 3, of the 5th Head of the Canons of Dordrecht:*
> *



I concur, that is why I used the phrase of "really and actually perishing." However, I don't completely follow how the hypothetical terminology is not applicable if God will not remove his grace, absolutely (he _wills_ that none perish). Once something is absolutely and infallibly the case, at least from the divine perspective, the opposite of it must be hypothetical -- unless I don't understand the term hypothetical. 



> With regards to infants and others whom we deem incapable of repentance, we must assume that they do not have, as you state the natural ability to repent. Which, by the way is, as a basic statement, correct since _none_ (adult or otherwise) have the ability to repent from their own, fallen nature.



For clarity, I was intending the meaning of _natural_ in the Edwardsian sense, making the dinstiction of Natural vs. Moral ability; 1 Cor 2:14 would fall in the latter. 



> (1 Corinthians 2:14) But these infants, like us, have been condemned without their knowledge (by original sin) and may be saved without their knowledge if God so decrees and gives them repentance, no matter how difficult it is for us to believe that this can be so. After all, is God's arm too short to save? I think not. (Isaiah 50:2) Besides, can not a child (or infant) express childlike trust in the Lord? I think so. (Psalm 22:10) Why not, then, repentance?



After writing my question above I was thinking along these lines. A solution is to say that God decrees to save through faith and repentance those that have natural (physical) capacity, while those that lack the natural he decrees to save without it, as we understand it (I can agree in child faith, but my illustration is more geared towards those who lack all natural capacity to operate in any fashion -- maybe such a condition doesn't exist and I am just assuming it does). 

Going back to hypothetical, as I understand it, are we to say that if an elect person doesn't reach repentence the death he already died with Christ (2 Cor 5:14) becomes undone.

---------- Post added at 01:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

Also, the reason I ask this is because this was the argument I get thrown at me when arguing against the Arminian interpretation. On the one hand I argue as Owen does against the obsurdity of one having to pay for sin after it has already been paid for by Christ (it was either paid for, or it wasn't, if it was, perishing is impossible). Yet, when I come to this verse I have to argue that perishing is possible for the elect apart from a condition of repentence. So, it is argued, I am being inconsistent. So, all in all, I am just not satisfied with my responses to that argument or any answer I have read.


----------



## ACBRown (May 19, 2010)

I would recommend two things for your consideration. If you haven't read Thomas Schreiner's book, "The Race Set Before Us," I would encourage that. It says some helpful things about hypothetical warnings. Jonathan Edwards wrote a paper on justification by faith, and in that excellent work, in its own section, he deals with warnings and conditionality. It is a tough read, but profound. I heartily recommend it to you.

As for a quick, and painfuly inadequate reply in general, I think it is important to note that union with Christ, for those with a natural capacity, is conditioned upon faith. And it appears, by virtue of the warnings, that this union remains by virtue of, well, grace first and foremost, but grace sustaining our faith. All spiritual blessing are in Christ. We are in Christ. We remain by faith. But we remain, more remotely, by virtue of God's sovereign purposes and effectual grace.

All the best,

Austin


----------

