By JohnBrian
May
20
2011
Starting this new thread so that the discussion at http://sharperiron.org/article/wanted-more-arminians]Wanted: More Arminians can stay on topic
5805 reads
my comments moved from "Wanted: More Arminians"
Peter begins his epistle this way:
When you come across the words "you" and/or "us" in the book, it refers to Peter and those who "have obtained like precious faith."
He begins chapter 3 with the word "beloved," which clearly refers to believers.
Notice in v.9 that God's longsuffering is toward "us" which, following the theme of the book, refers to believers. It is in this context that Peter speaks of God being not willing that any (of us) should perish. The reason Peter gives for the delay of the promise of the Lord's coming is his long suffering toward the beloved.
I believe that your extending of the long suffering to "humans" (all men without exception), fails to keep that phrase in it's proper context.
http://www.scionofzion.com/2_peter_3_9.htm 2 Peter 3:9 by Ken Matto:
John Gill on 2 Peter 3:9 from the http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/2010/09/23/john-gill-on-2-peter-39 ]Lighthearted Calvinist :
John Calvin from his commentary, posted at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.iv.iii.html CCEL :
Calvin sees the "any" as all mankind!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
JohnBrian wrote: Peter begins
So "us" in verse 1 does not even include the recipients of the letter.
So, "us" in 3:9 can not be restricted in meaning to the same "us" in 1:1.
No at all, as I just explained."Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy."
G.K. Chesterton
1 Peter
Looking at 2 Peter 3:9 in the greater context of both his epistles.
In 2 Peter 3:1 he writes:
He’s writing a 2nd time to the same people he previously wrote to. If we look at the recipients of the 1st epistle that will inform us as to whom this epistle is addressed to.
In 1 Peter 1:1-2 he begins by identifying himself and his recipients:
We see that he is writing to pilgrims who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God (at this point it doesn’t matter whether one holds to the unconditional or the conditional view of election).
Throughout this letter he uses the pronouns you and us, which refer to this group of elect pilgrims.
In 1 Peter 2:1-3 he gives instructions to some individual or group:
Verse 1 doesn’t tell us specifically who is to obey these instructions, but v.2 informs us that it is you, these same elect pilgrims. Clearly this command is not to the unregenerate, it is only to those who are believers.
In 1 Peter 2:7 we have another group of people introduced – the disobedient:
In 1 Peter 2:18-25 we have another group identified – servants, but the command Peter gives to them is based on them being a subset of the elect pilgrim group:
In 1 Peter 3, the apostle singles out 2 additional groups – wives and husbands. Here again his instructions to them are based on them being of the elect pilgrim group.
In 1 Peter 3:18 he gives the reason to endure the suffering that is the result of their righteous living:
In chapter 4, Peter continues his encouragement to the elect pilgrims, and in chapter 5, he gives some final encouragement to the elect pilgrims.
Nowhere in this first letter does Peter speak to the non-believers. He gives them no promises, he offers no blessings, and he commands nothing of them. He refers to them in the first few verses of chapter 4 by showing that they face judgment.
Since this letter is included in the Scripture, we understand that the instructions and encouragement are not for these initial recipients solely, but are for the elect pilgrims of all times and in all places.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
2 Peter
As I noted in Post 1 of this thread, Peter’s 2nd letter begins by addressing those “who have obtained like precious faith with us.” These are the elect pilgrims of chapter 1, as 2 Peter 3:1 shows.
Let me take a slight detour here to reference the omniscience of God. For those who affirm this doctrine, a necessary corollary is that the number of the elect is fixed, as is the number of the non-elect. Here again it does not matter whether one holds to an unconditional or conditional view of election. There are only 2 columns of people and there can be no movement between those columns.
So even though you (Dan) may be right in noting that there cannot be a restriction in 3:9, you still cannot extend the us to include the non-elect, as they can never become elect.
There are countless numbers of elect pilgrims who have come to salvation in the 1900 years since Peter wrote. All of those, ourselves included, “have obtained like precious faith,” with Peter and these elect pilgrims. The non-elect cannot obtain “like precious faith!”
In 2 Peter 1:4, the apostle includes the obtained-like-precious-faith people in the elect pilgrim group.
This verse can only refer to the elect – there are no “great and precious promises” for the non-elect! The rest of this chapter is encouragement for believers
Chapter 2 is about false teachers and their doom. Peter’s harshest words are saved for this group.
Then we come to chapter 3 and the encouragement of verses 8-9
The question here is, to whom do the words all and any refer?
The answer can be found by determining whom the preceding us refers to! The any and all are any of us, and all of us.
It cannot be all-men-without-exception because the non-elect cannot come to repentance. They cannot move from the non-elect column to the elect column because to admit that possibility requires an abandonment of the doctrine of the omniscience of God.
In 2 Peter 3:14-15 we again see Peter refer to the Lord’s longsuffering as encouragement to believers.
In neither of Peter’s letters are there any promises made to the non-elect. To insist that 2 words, out of all that he wrote, must include the non-elect, when he is specifically writing to the elect is to go beyond the apostle's intent.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
additional resources on 2 Peter 3:9
Jeff Peterson at http://thelightheartedcalvinist.com/2011/07/09/2-peter-39-excerpt-from-a... ]The Lighthearted Calvinist
John Samson at http://effectualgrace.com/2010/11/23/understanding-2-peter-39 ]Effectual Grace
http://www.albatrus.org/english/universalistic/universalistic_passages/2... Albatrus.org provides quotes from a number of writers: Boettner, Sproul, Pink, Owen.
from http://www.pbministries.org/Landmark_Baptist/Seminary/Bible_Study_Course... John Gill’s Commentary
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Questions and Observations
John Brian,
Having read your comments, I’m not convinced you are correct, at least, not entirely.
Questions:
1. For what reason does God need to be patient with the recipients of Peter’s second epistle (unless they have fallen into sin and are in danger of apostasy)?
2. Why say God is not willing (“desiring”; “wishing”) that they perish if they are already saved and secured by God’s power for salvation?
3. Why is God waiting for them to repent? Are the recipients of this letter “elect” persons who refuse to repent at the time of the r3.eading of this epistle?
Observations:
1. In a previous post, someone noted that Calvin, in his commentary, understood the “any” to refer to “mankind” and not only the “elect”.
2. “Patience” is equivalent to the OT description of God “by which God bears [I ]with sinners[/I ] (not confined to the “God’s people”, the “elect”, unless, they are fallen in sin), holds back his wrath, refrains from intervening in judgment as soon as the sinner’s deeds deserve it, though not indefinitely” (Bauckman, WBC 50:314). However, such patience extends first to God’s people when they have sinned.
3. However, this is not to say that the “elect” are not the primary referent. It is to say that to limit the “you”, “any”, and “all” to the “elect” is indefensible. Even Baukman, who sees the primary reference is to the believers of Peter’s epistle, concedes that the “opportunity for repentance, can be validly extended…to God’s desire that [I ]all[/I ] people should repent” (Ibid). Repentance can only be demanded in relation to sin, both of the believers who falls into sin and the unbelievers living in sin. It is directed to believers, not as “elect” but as having fallen into sin; and to the unbeliever, not as being of the number of the “elect”, but as one who is unbelieving and lost in sin.
I appreciate the opportunity to present my position. I am not a scholar but merely as one passing by the fields of theology and gathering what flowers and fruits are available at hand.
atdCross
http://atdcross.blogspot.com/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
answers to post #6
Further, if God is waiting for all-men-without-exception to come to repentance, the verse would not need the words towards us, but the inclusion of that phrase creates the limit. Also, since all-men-without-exception will not come to repentance, why has Christ not already returned. Each day that Christ delays His coming, more people are born who will ultimately go to their death and ultimate judgement as unbelievers.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
ellipsis
In this passage you have an ellipsis in the Greek, and also in the English.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ellipsis ]Dictionary.com defines ellipsis thusly:
2 Peter 3:9 could have been written this way:
Both of the of us phrases have been left out because the context supplies them.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Responding to Post#7
JohnBrian,
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and responding. However, I'm not sure I understand what your meaning is when only citing Acts 17:30 in answer what I stated as quoted. Did I or you miss something?
Jurst to make clear, my contention is not that you refer 2 Pet 3:9 to the "elect" but that you refer it exclusively to the elect.
For the following reasons, your argument is not convincing:
1. I think verses like 1 Tim 2:4; 4:10; Ezk 18:23,32; Titus 2:11; and Jn 3:17 would support the contention that God's desire is that "everyone" (NIV) as a sinner would come to repentance; and since the context seems to be eternal salvation (vs.12-13), it is more likely that the writer of this epistle intended - by “you”, “any”, and “all” - contemplated all of mankind in sin. I would not necessarily exclude those reading the epistle at the time or, as you might say, the "future elect" (which, to me, is a misnomer if taken in the Calvinistic sense), but neither do I think all men as sinners are not included.
2. There are those scholars who would disagree with you, for example, as I've stated before, Calvin (unless I misunderstood his comment in his Commentary, which, if that is the case, please advise and show how), and in the following resources available to me:
I'm not sure if your post #8 is a further response to my post or not. If it is, unfortunately, I am neither a scholar nor an expert in NT Greek so I am not competent to either confirm the accuracy of your analysis of the Greek or offer a response one way or the other (except by referring to scholars expert in the language).
In any case, seeing that there are some scholars (e.g. as listed above) who disagree with your interpretation of the text and rather agree with how I read it, I think it is safe to respectfully hold your position of the text as erred.
atdCross
http://atdcross.blogspot.com/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
JohnBrian wrote:2 Peter 3:9
1. Question: What version are you using?
Your rendition seems to alter the verse. Your write that the verse could be written, "longsuffering toward us" but the NIV translates it "patient with you" (also the NASB and RSV).
If your rendition is inaccurate, as suggested by the other translations, why would the writer switch the second phrase to "us": "any of us"? It seems the writer is going from the specific, "you", to the wider, "us", to finally encompass, "all", that is mankind.
2. Is not an ellipsis required to clarify a statement? for example: Lamentations 5:2:
"Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers / Our houses to aliens."
Here, "Our houses to aliens" makes very little sense unless we assume that the writer simply left out "has been turned over". That's the ellipsis. So the way we're supposed read the phrase is, "Our houses [have been turned over ] to aliens".
On what grounds does 2 Peter 3:9 need to be clarified?
It seems to me that no inclusion of words is is necessary for clarity. It is clear that , read as stated, God is patient towards his readers, not willing that any person should perish but every one to come to repentance and, thereby, be saved. Nothing about that is unclear.
The "you", "any", and "all", is nowhere qualified in the text, as I read it, to mean the "elect", or certain divinely chosen individuals at the exclusion of all others. The text makes good sense as it stands. Your appeal to an ellipsis it is not on the basis of the text but on the basis of a doctrinal presupposition. It seems to me that you are attempting to change the whole meaning of the clear meaning of the text.
I'm reminded of a verse where it reads that by Christ "all things were created"; yet, we find an appeal is made something to the effect of an ellipsis, and it is translated in a bible as "all [other ] things". That obviously changes the whole sentence and the meaning of it.
Your suggestion seems to do the same. The sentence structure you wish to change it to may not be that obvious, but it does serve the purpose of changing the whole meaning to support a specific doctrinal viewpoint. There is a big difference in just writing, "all come to repentance" and writing it as, "all of us to come to repentance". This changes the meaning of 2 Peter 3:9 in much the same way the insertions of "other" changes Col 1:16.
As such, I respectfully submit that your explanation is (1) not necessarily warranted by the context, as you argue, and is based, not on a proper reading of the text in question, but upon a theological presupposition; and (2) rather than clarify the text, the insertion "of us" changes the entire meaning, when the meaning, as it stands in its varied translations (as cited above), is already clear as stated. It is interesting that I have not found any translation that subtsantiates your argument. I would think that there might be, at least, a half-dozen or so translation that would insert "of us" (or a least a footnote) as you suggest. Isn't it the job of the translator to make a meaning of a text clear when it is ambiguous?
Although I am not a scholar and have the requisite knowledge of NT Greek, the considerations above lead me to believe that you are clearly erred and unconsciously forcing the meaning of a text to meent specifications of a particular doctrine.
atdCross
http://atdcross.blogspot.com/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
Oops!
Last sentence of my post #10 should read: "Although I am not a scholar and have not the requisite knowledge of NT Greek", etc.
atdCross
http://atdcross.blogspot.com/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
Are We Reading "Back to the Future"?
atdCross
http://atdcross.blogspot.com/
http://evangelicalarminians.org/