# 2 Peter 3:9



## CubsIn07 (Apr 5, 2007)

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance"

This passage is talking about believers correct? Thus, Piper's defense of the two wills in God is unnecessary.


----------



## MW (Apr 5, 2007)

Correct. God's longsuffering is for the purpose of saving the "beloved" elect to whom he is writing.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 5, 2007)

Dear Jeremy, 

Not wanting to get into a big debate on the Critical textual family versus the Received/Majority family of text, note the KJV:

"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."

The difference in Greek is one letter of a similar appearance. The variant in the NASB has been understood by reformed commentators, however, in the same sense as the KJV, by referring back to 2 Peter 1.1: 

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

So then, the "you" in question in the NASB refers to the Apostle's audience, which are those who have obtained like precious faith.


----------



## KMK (Apr 6, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear Jeremy,
> 
> Not wanting to get into a big debate on the Critical textual family versus the Received/Majority family of text, note the KJV:
> 
> ...



And you don't even need to go all the way back to 1:1. The immediate context of 3:1. Paul says he is writing to those of 'you' who have 'pure minds'. And 3:3-6 where the 'you with pure minds' is contrasted with 'they who are willingly ignorant scoffers'. And in 3:7 where the 'they' are described as 'ungodly men headed for perdition'. Therefore, the us-ward that Paul refers to is the 'you who have pure minds' and not the 'they who are ungodly, ignorant scoffers headed for perdition'. 

I have never understood how pastors, who are good exegetes in other areas, can stand in the pulpit and use this verse to prove pelagian/arminian doctrines. Use a different verse, please! Use John 3:16 if you want, at least that holds a little more water.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 6, 2007)

Yes, it refers to believers.

(Hey, Trevor. How can I get a cool tag line like yours? )


----------



## elnwood (Apr 6, 2007)

What about Ezekiel 18:23?

[Bible]ezekiel 18:23[/bible]


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 6, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance"
> 
> This passage is talking about believers correct? Thus, Piper's defense of the two wills in God is unnecessary.



Unecessary? I'm not following.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Apr 6, 2007)

Unecessary because Piper assumed that this passage concerned all humanity instead of the elect. He didn't have to formulate an untenable doctrine to uphold Reformed teaching.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 7, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> Unecessary because Piper assumed that this passage concerned all humanity instead of the elect. He didn't have to formulate an untenable doctrine to uphold Reformed teaching.



But even in the intro of his 'two wills' articles, he acknowledges that the 'two wills' defense is simply another observation drawn out of scripture, but that the passage itself is speaking of believers.


----------



## KMK (Apr 7, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> Unecessary because Piper assumed that this passage concerned all humanity instead of the elect. He didn't have to formulate an untenable doctrine to uphold Reformed teaching.



To which Piper work are you referring? (And nice beard, BTW)


----------



## JOwen (Apr 7, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance"
> 
> This passage is talking about believers correct? Thus, Piper's defense of the two wills in God is unnecessary.



You might find John Calvin's take interesting.

" 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. " 2 Peter 3:9

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might *invite all mankind *to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". So wonderful is his love *towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved,* and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive *all to repentance*, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of *the hidden purpose of God*, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of *his will as made known to us in the gospel*. For God there stretches forth his hand *without a difference to all*, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, *whom he has chosen *before the foundation of the world. But as the verb _chōreō_ is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance."​


----------



## CubsIn07 (Apr 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> To which Piper work are you referring? (And nice beard, BTW)



He has an appendix in the pleasures of God that talks about this. That same article is in the book "Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace."

Sorry, that is not me in the picture. That is one of my professors, Kevin Vanhoozer from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I am growing a little beard myself, but tomorrow it is coming off.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Apr 7, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> But even in the intro of his 'two wills' articles, he acknowledges that the 'two wills' defense is simply another observation drawn out of scripture, but that the passage itself is speaking of believers.



So he writes a terribly long article on something that doesn't even pertain to the passage?


----------



## KMK (Apr 8, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> He has an appendix in the pleasures of God that talks about this. That same article is in the book "Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace."
> 
> Sorry, that is not me in the picture. That is one of my professors, Kevin Vanhoozer from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I am growing a little beard myself, but tomorrow it is coming off.



Hey, me too! That guy in the picture... is actually my high school teacher. I am only 18. Yeah! That's it! I am 18!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 10, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> So he writes a terribly long article on something that doesn't even pertain to the passage?



It does.

It also covers other issues related to the passage.

It's up on the web, you know.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 10, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> Sorry, that is not me in the picture. That is one of my professors, Kevin Vanhoozer from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I am growing a little beard myself, but tomorrow it is coming off.



Ahhhhh. The other 'Van' person at TEDS  (VanGemeren visits our church quarterly and is good friends with my pastor and a few members of our congregation.)


----------



## CubsIn07 (Apr 10, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> It does.
> 
> It also covers other issues related to the passage.
> 
> It's up on the web, you know.



I have the book and I read it. I hadn't read the appendix for a while so I forgot that he said that in his introduction. I just think that affirming that God has two wills in a dangerous proposition, one that didn't need to be made and one that opens up more theological questions than it answers.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 11, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> I have the book and I read it. I hadn't read the appendix for a while so I forgot that he said that in his introduction. I just think that affirming that God has two wills in a dangerous proposition, one that didn't need to be made and one that opens up more theological questions than it answers.




What questions are those ?


----------



## terry72 (Apr 11, 2007)

*Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9*

I would like to know the opinions of the board of John Calvin's commentary on this passage. JOwen has already posted it but nobody seemed to notice it or read it. I'll post it again.

" 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. " 2 Peter 3:9

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, *that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance*. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. *In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.*

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". *So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost.* But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? *To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel.* For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. But as the verb chōreō is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance."​
It is obvious from this commentary that John Calvin did not take the common "calvinistic" interpretation of this text. He clear believes the longsuffering and unwillingness is towards all mankind in order to offer them salvation.

Now, I personally, do not favor Calvin's interpretation on this particular passage, even though I have no problem with Calvin's sentiment here and the truthfulness of it. God is indeed longsuffering to all mankind. But I do not take the other interpreatation for the same reasons as already mentioned here on this thread. I do not believe the "audience" argument can be sustained, it is a bad argument, because just because a letter is written to a particular audience does not mean that it cannot deal with subject matter that has a broader reference and application than to the "audience".

I would argue that the context of preservation of the righteous and the reserving of the wicked to judgment repeated several time in chapter 2 and again repeated again in chapter 3, sets the context, and therefore we have a Romans 9 parallel. Therefore God is not willing that any of those elected to repentance perish, and will certainly bring all to repentance, but will certainly judge the wicked and ungodly that are reserved for judgment and wrath.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

P.S. I do, however, see merits in Calvin's interpretation. And just to reiterate, the "Letterhead/audience" argument does not sufficiently counter Calvin's interpretation.


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

terry72 said:


> I would like to know the opinions of the board of John Calvin's commentary on this passage. JOwen has already posted it but nobody seemed to notice it or read it. I'll post it again.
> 
> " 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. " 2 Peter 3:9
> 
> ...



Well, Calvin was just a man. He was wrong about baptism so why can't he be wrong about this?


----------



## Kevin Lewis (Apr 11, 2007)

*amen brother*



trevorjohnson said:


> Peter is saying;
> 
> "Hey, some of you all think the Lord is late. But, let me tell you...he is right on time. He has a plan and He has a set number of people picked out to save and this old world aint gonna end until all His Elect are saved..because God is not willing that any should perish. After the last Elect soul is saved, then here comes the fire..."



amen


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 11, 2007)

This is an exceptionally clear and helpful video explanation of the passage. I commend it to you all.


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

terry72 said:


> I would like to know the opinions of the board of John Calvin's commentary on this passage. JOwen has already posted it but nobody seemed to notice it or read it. I'll post it again.



Calvin gives *an* explanation of the passage which is perfectly in accord with Calvinisitic teaching. It is not *the best* exegetical explanation, given that it is divorced somewhat from the immediate context; but if we consider the text from a theological point of view, Calvin has carefully distinguished between the secret counsel of God and the outward call of the gospel. One might consult Larger Catechism answer 32 and see the same distinction stated in much the same way.

One point needs to be remembered when talking about "two wills" in God. There are not, properly speaking, two wills. There is only one will in the proper sense of the word, that is, in the volitional sense. God wills all things which come to pass. This is His secret counsel. Then we speak somewhat improperly of God's will as the duty which He has commanded of us. This does not always come to pass, and therefore cannot be regarded as His own volition, but rather what He has chosen to make known to us that we might obey Him. If we were to be consistent in our use of these terms we would always speak of God's will of decree in the indicative and His will of command in the subjunctive. By so doing we would essentially be showing that the "two wills" are really only one will expressed differently in two distinct contexts.


----------



## Chris (Apr 11, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> This is an exceptionally clear and helpful video explanation of the passage. I commend it to you all.



If I had the money, I'd buy the entire series!


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> One point needs to be remembered when talking about "two wills" in God. There are not, properly speaking, two wills. There is only one will in the proper sense of the word, that is, in the volitional sense. God wills all things which come to pass. This is His secret counsel. Then we speak somewhat improperly of God's will as the duty which He has commanded of us. This does not always come to pass, and therefore cannot be regarded as His own volition, but rather what He has chosen to make known to us that we might obey Him. *If we were to be consistent in our use of these terms we would always speak of God's will of decree in the indicative and His will of command in the subjunctive. * By so doing we would essentially be showing that the "two wills" are really only one will expressed differently in two distinct contexts.



Good point, Rev Winzer. I will try to do so in the future.


----------

