A:  I don’t want to be a calvinist or arminian.  I don’t like labels so I’ll just be a Biblicist.

B:  Well, what kind of church to you go to?

A:  We’re an independent, fundamental, Baptist church that is premillenial and dispensational.

B:  Wait, what?

A:  When I read the Bible, I see God holding man accountable for his sins.

B:  Yeah, me too.

A:  And I don’t think God forces anyone to repent against their will.

B:  Of course not.

A:  And I think Christ’s death had benefits for every man.

B. Oh, absolutely.

A:  So, you’re not a Calvinist either, huh?

B:  Wait, what?

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.

See also: Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism.

I want to take a look at two views on infant salvation.  I do affirm infant salvation, but I want to show how that can play out Biblically.  I think some people just assume it based on their intuitions of justice, but I want to show how God can allow an infant into Heaven and on what grounds.  In doing so, I will attempt to show that the non-Calvinist view is inconsistent in this area while the Calvinist maintains a consistency in his soteriology.In my opinion, it seems that the Calvinist view of infant salvation is the only one that is consistent with the view of general salvation.  I’ll attempt to show why, but I want to focus the argument a bit so I’ll discuss it in relation to the non-Calvinist who affirms Total Depravity.  Arminians generally fall into this category.  Arminius himself affirmed Total Depravity, but used prevenient grace to overcome it.  I think many of the people I interact with fall into this position.  I’m not going to spend my time on those that believe people are conceived innocent.  If a person is conceived in innocence, why did they die?  Why is it fair for someone to inherit the physical punishment for sin but not the spiritual?

So let’s look at the non-Calvinist who affirms Total Depravity.  The doctrine of Total Depravity teaches us that man inherits Adam’s sin nature and has Adam’s sin imputed to them.  This makes them completely against God from conception.  To quote Piper, “In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment.”  MacArthur has an excellent sermon on Total Depravity from the T4G conference.  It’s not my intention to establish the doctrine of Total Depravity and its ramifications here.  You can see some of these resources for that.  Also, try Sproul’s What is Reformed Theology for a simple discussion of this doctrine.

Here’s the problem we run into with Total Depravity in regards to infant salvation.  If a person is conceived in a state of sinfulness or with a sin nature, they are not worthy of heaven, but deserve hell instead.  This is a sobering thought.  It goes against our intuitions about justice and grace.  Now, the Bible has the right to correct our intuitions if that is the case, but it must be the clear teaching of Scripture that does this.

Most non-Calvinists use the idea of an age of accountability to deal with infant salvation.  In other words, God doesn’t hold someone accountable until they are old enough to understand right from wrong and be able to willfully choose to sin.  This is the view that I held for a long time as a non-Calvinist.  I think our culture of rugged individualism and unchecked Arminianism has led to this.  We have made salvation decisional and an act of will rather than a sovereign act of God.  Since an infant or fetus or mentally handicapped person is unable to freely will his salvation, God must make a special exception just for them.

But here we have a problem.  We now have two different methods of salvation.  One for infants, fetuses, and the handicapped, and one for the rest of us.  So if you hold the view that salvation works this way:  “By an act of will, by faith, I believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and am therefore regenerated and justified (my quick summary of the non-Calvinist’s ordo salutis)”; then you must have a different method of salvation for the infants, fetuses, and handicapped.  Unfortunately the Bible doesn’t teach this.  If regeneration comes by way of belief/faith, then the unborn and infant dead have no chance to get it.  So in our idea of fairness we make up a doctrine called the age of accountability to make parents feel better about the death of a child.  But to do this is to say that infants, fetuses and the handicapped deserve heaven, which, of course, is a total denial of Total Depravity.  You can’t have it both ways.  Infant salvation doesn’t work biblically with Total Depravity and Decisional Regeneration.  Otherwise you have two ways to get saved.

The Calvinist has no problem here.  Salvation is a sovereign act of God, not the product of the free will of man.  God in His sovereignty is perfectly capable of regenerating an infant, fetus, or mentally handicapped person.  In the Calvinist view of salvation, God elects, and regenerates, whereupon man responds in faith.  The natural expression of regeneration is belief.  Jesus in speaking to Nicodemus in John 3 tells him, “You must be born again.”  This rebirth results and is expressed in belief.  So God sovereignly regenerates and man responds in belief.  This is a logical order rather than a chronological order.

So God, in His sovereignty is able to regenerate an infant and impute Christ’s righteousness to him without an act of will on the part of the infant.  The natural response will be belief.  But how can a fetus respond to God?  Ask John the Baptist.  Since we know that God is a gracious God and that God seems to have a special love for children, and that Scriptures allude to infant/fetus salvation (2 Sam. 12:23; Job 3:11-19), we conclude that God sovereignly elects infants/fetuses for His own purposes.  We still have one method of salvation.  We can still affirm Total Depravity while giving grieving parents hope.