The Gomez Blog

Keeping up with theology, technology, and 4 crazy kids.

Answering Arminian Proof-Texts

Edit:  I entered this discussion as part of a misunderstanding on Facebook.  The topic of 2 Peter 3:9 came up and I thought I would use this opportunity to do a little writing on the subject since a lot of people I know have questions about God’s sovereignty in salvation and how it relates to passages like this.  Here’s my take on 2 Peter 3:9.

Let’s look at the passage itself, in a historical-grammatical context.  Peter is writing to confront and expose false teachers that were infiltrating the church.  He begins the book by reminding them of the truth of their salvation and their responsibility to grow in the faith (1:1-15).  He discusses the trustworthiness of Scripture because of its supernatural source (1:16-21).

Starting in chapter 2, he confronts the false teachers and sets up a “them” vs. “you” motif that he’s going to continue through the rest of the book.  Moving through chapter 2, he continually pronounces condemnation on these false teachers.  Verses 12-17:  “But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness. . . . These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.”  Pretty strong language.

Chapter 3 begins with Peter shifting gears to speak more directly to the elect who were apparently becoming discouraged by the seeming delayed appearance of Christ.  Some scoffers had entered the church who were putting forward an emotional argument saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (3:4).  They were denying Christ by affirming a form of uniformitarianism.  In verse 8, we see Peter again switching gears from warning about scoffers to encouraging the “beloved”.

Verse 8 states:  “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”  Peter is building up an argument where he is going to show them that God is not confined to their timing, but operates on His own.  And also that this idea should not cause them to become discouraged, thinking that God is slow in keeping His promises.

Then we get to the pivotal verse:  “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”  So, the “beloved” are to be comforted by the fact that God is not slow in fulfilling His promises, as some people are accusing Him.  But, rather, He is patient.  Who is He patient toward?  The verse states, “us”.  The immediate context seems to confine “us” to the “beloved” and Peter.  In fact, the whole time Peter has set up “them” as being the scoffers and false teachers.  The “us” is set up as opposite to “them”.  So why is God patient toward “us” or the “beloved”?  He is patient because He is not willing that any (of “us”) should perish, but that all (of “us”) should come to repentance.

Peter’s argument here is that Christ’s coming in judgment is delayed because of His patient desire to see “all” come to repentance.  If all is including those that will never come to faith, then He will have to delay His judgment indefinitely because of His desire for “them” to come to repentance.  But if all is a set number of elect chosen from the foundation of the world, then God’s patience will eventually be satisfied when “all” finally do come to repentance.

Here’s MacArthur on the passage:

The “any” must refer to those whom the Lord has chosen and will call to complete the redeemed, i.e., the “us.”  Since the whole passage is about God’s destroying the wicked, His patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all His own.  He can’t be waiting for everyone to be saved, since the emphasis is that He will destroy the world and the ungodly. . . .  “All” (cf. “us,” “any”) must refer to all who are God’s people who will come to Christ to make up the full number of the people of God.  The reason for the delay in Christ’s coming and the attendant judgments is not because He is slow to keep His promise, or because He wants to judge more of the wicked, or because He is impotent in the face of wickedness.  He delays His coming because He is patient and desires the time for His people to repent.

So there’s an interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9.  Sorry my Greek is not up to snuff, but I don’t think appealing to nuances of the Greek will change the interpretation here.  Anyone is welcome to throw down in the combox, just try to avoid silly arguments like, “Of course you interpret it that way, you’re a Calvinist.”  Show me my error based on the historical-grammatical method.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

Tagged as , , + Categorized as Theology, Calvinism, Theology

1 Comments

  1. R. C. Sproul ’s comments on this passage
    The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing that any should perish.

    How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?

    In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God’s sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.

    The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his perceptive will. God’s perceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God’s will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying his will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.

    A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God’s disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgement but is “sad” that such righteous judgement must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.

    Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in w Peter. If we take the blanket statement, “God is not willing that any should perish,” and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be proof not for Arminiainism, but for Universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminiainism.

    Suppose we apply the definition of the perceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

    The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

    Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

    What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christianias, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favour of predestination.

    In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminiainism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism

Leave a Reply