2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

[Rolf Ernst]

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:9

This verse is used by many to claim that the Reformed (Calvinistic) view of Scripture is not Biblical; but to the contrary, when it is fully considered, it proves that Calvinism is Scriptural and that the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture is not Biblical.

Chapters two and three show Peter's concern about false teachings. In the second chapter he uses examples to show that God is able to punish or reward all according to their deeds. In the third chapter he deals with one error in particular. Unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter's response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: "see, He is not willing that any individual of mankind perish. He wants all (every--each and every) to come to repentance." My, my. We do have a problem here. If He is delaying that coming in judgment because He doesnt want any in the Arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self-defeating because the fact is that every day in every age, the broad road which leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road which leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die. Therefore the Arminian understanding of why God has not yet returned in judgement shows the motive of His longsuffering to be self-defeating.

The Reformed view does not at all see God's longsuffering as self-defeating. It views God's longsuffering as performing exactly what He purposed in it. Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to usward: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His seed whom He would see (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is the "Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace" should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL come to repentance, no matter how many of the non-elect perish.

And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in verse 15, "consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."

The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view.

 

[Clete]

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[God_Is_Truth]

wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete

POTD :first:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum?

Yes.... I will move it.

 

[Leo Volont]

Look at the format Peter is using.

He is not presenting Revelation from God like some Great Prophet. He is making quasi-rationalist arguments, just like you or me or anybody else. So why are you putting so much weight on it? Anybody who argues is tacitly admitting the possibility of error. When Peter is thrashing about trying to explain why Jesus was wrong about the Second Coming, he is only guessing and hoping for the best. He doesn't tell us that any Angel came to him and told him this or that. He reaches into his scripture bag and starts quoting this and that, just like you would do. But you don't think you are right do you? So how can you think Peter was right?

By the way, when was 2nd Peter written? Peter was martyred before the Sack of Jerusalem, wasn't he? Peter did not wait long enough before complaining. The World did end. The Second Coming did occur. The Sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. tied up all the loose ends of the Age of the Patriarches. John was the only Apostolic survivor, I believe, which, again, fits into what Christ Himself had prophecized. We would have known more about the Second Coming, except that it was an extremely bloody affair and had no surviving witnesses.

The misunderstandings we have today source out of the mistaken notion that we are still living in the Dispensation of the Patriarchs of which the coming of Christ was the culmination. That is all over. We are now living it what has obviously been the Dispensation of Mary. for the last several thousand years all Grace from God has been through Mary. There is certainly no other evidence to the contrary, while we have reports of thousands of Intercessions of Our Lady. This had been common knowledge, up until the 15th Century, but after the Protestant/Satanic Victory over the Church of the Marian Dispensation, all spiritual information has been largely swept away, and a populous educated in secular atheist schools are surprised to find Mary mentioned at all.

Anyway, in less then 10 years I suspect that the Age of Mary will come to its End and we will see a new Age of the Holy Spirit. There have been numerous prophecies that point in this direction. Pieces of the puzzle all form the same picture. I myself even gathered a piece. The other night I was swirled up to Heaven by a Spiritual Vortex and when I again set foot on earth I had a phrase planted on my tongue. "Hail Mary full of Grace, World Lifter". I had become aware that I was in a dream and started reciting the "Hail Mary" -- but after I passed through heaven the words had changed. The World is about to be 'lifted' up. Notice, I make no silly Petereque arguments which might or might not be wrong. I present the Words from Heaven.

 

[1Way]

God is good, we can count on His faithful character and ways

God is good, we can count on His faithful character and ways

Excellent Knight and Clete!

You "can" find support for slavery and hating those we should love in the bible if we are determined to find it there. An objective review of God's word denies the closed view as being too extreme. All that needs be done to correct the immutability of God is to make it conform to (all of) scripture, and not according to a few isolated out of context misinterpretations.

God says things sometimes in very indirect perhaps confounding ways. For example.

Pr 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Why does God use indirect and somewhat shaded thought provoking messages? Perhaps it’s because of the beauty of a caring meaningful righteous relationship where if you care about the truth of the matter, you will naturally seek out to understand it beyond the superficial. Stay on the same page as the writer, if you are wise, you will take in all of God’s word very carefully prior to pretending to know some particular issue. Consider

Pr 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Then it is easier to understand that God really does want the world to search for Him and seek Him out, and to not judge by outward appearance.

Ac 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

So when God says that He does not change, and then demonstrates and teaches very consistently that he does in deed change and does not know the entire future as one unchangeable outcome, then we have to dig a little deeper to get the right understanding of what God means whenever He teaches that there is no shadow of turning in Him. etc.

• Nu 23:19 "God [is] not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

(God is truthful and faithful, He does not error in His judgments, He just does not know the uncertain outcomes of every yet future event, so sometimes God willingly repents from doing what He thought or said He would do.)

• Mal 3:6 "For I [am] the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

(God is just and swift and faithful against
“sorcerers, Against adulterers, Against perjurers, Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, And against those who turn away an alien—Because they do not fear Me," Says the LORD of hosts.”
We can count on God’s character and ways.)

• Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today, and forever.

(The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid because of His awesome presence in my life, remain steadfast in sound doctrine that God richly provides, He is faithful and true, we can count on Jesus forever.)

• Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

(God is good and never evil, it is a condemnable slander to say that “good may come from evil”, it can not. God does not even tempt us with evil, man is the unstable variable element, not God. God is righteous and faithful and true.)

I see no reason to overstep the contextual development of these teachings that God designed them to be understood within. Biblical, not classical, divine immutability is right when taken in conformity with all of God’s word.

Excellent post Clete!

 

[1Way]

God’s word is pleasant and fruitful

God’s word is pleasant and fruitful

Sometimes it is so much fun digging into God’s word. Here are some more examples of God’s bent towards being sort of tricky and not overly obvious.

• Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."
  
  Joh 12:47 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

See, 2 very contradicting ideas, but they are to be understood in different yet similar ways.

• Mt 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
  
  Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

2 seeming contradictions

• Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,

1 reasonable solution

Sorry for the tangent path. Enjoy God’s word!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Knight

POTD :first:

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet!


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet!


Resting in Him,
Clete

The best posts tend to say so much with as few words as possible.

Those are the type of posts I like the most. :up:

 

[smaller]

Some God. He saves 5% of the population???

Calvinists and Arminians are the same in this respect. 95% still end up being tortured forever by the God who commands us to love our enemies while He gets to burn His.

For some reason or another God just can't seem to get the job done.

In Calvinism He WILL not.

In Arminianism He CAN not.

You would all do well to see the "unbeliever" for what it is. The BLINDNESS that is CAUSED BY the "god" of this world. That makes SIN indwelling men and EVIL present within men the "unbeliever."

Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does.

This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure...

enjoy!

smaller

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Re: 2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

Rolf,

Your points are invalid because you fail to rightly understand what Peter is actually saying. You said,

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: “see, He is’not willing’ that any individual of mankind perish. He wants ‘all’ (every--each and every) to “come to repentance.”

This verse in no way implies that God "wants all to come to repentance." There are other verses that say that, but 2 Peter 3:9 does not. As much as you would love the OVer's here to defend that position, 2 Peter 3:9 is not saying that. More on that in a moment... You continue,

Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to “usward”: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world...

Where does God's Word say anything about Him electing individuals "before the foundation of the world?" It doesn't... :kookoo:

So, what exactly is 2 Peter 3:9 saying? Peter's second epistle was written somewhere around forty years after the day of Pentecost. Shortly before Pentecost, the believers were "expecting Christ's immediate return" (Acts 1:6). Peter stands up on the day of Pentecost and preaches a wonderful sermon describing "the last days" and Israel's enduring the tribulation. When Peter quotes Joel's "Day of the Lord" prophecy, Peter says,

"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel..."

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter changes Joel's original prophecy from,

Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward..."

to

Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days..."

Why is this significant? Peter believed that the tribulation was going to begin, and after seven years, Christ would return and set up the Kingdom. Now, approximately forty years after Pentecost, Peter is still waiting for Tribulation and establishment of the Kingdom. That's why Peter writes,

2 Peter 3
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

It seems that Peter is being ridiculed because he is still waiting for Christ's return. Peter, however, remains faithful...

2 Peter 3
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 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 defends God, and reassures his brethern that God will indeed return, just as promised. Then we get to our verse, 2 Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise..." Christ will return because God has promised it. Now, let's discuss your interpretation of the last half of verse 9...

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not counseling any to perish but counseling all to have room for repentance.

Most english translations say "not willing" any to perish. The word used here is much stronger. God is "not counseling" any to perish. Peter uses the word boulomenoV, which is a strong word for Counsel. So, God is strongly not counseling any to perish. This flies in the face of calvinism. John Calvin himself said God predestines men to hell. :kookoo: Peter is saying that God is not counseling any to perish. So then, what is God "counseling?" God is counseling every person on the face of the earth "to have room for" repentance. For some reason, the calvinistic english translators took the liberty of translating a word that means "to have room for" as "come." Why do they do this? I have no idea. Let me show you how this word is used and that it should be translated "have room for."

Here's the last half of 2 Peter 3:9 in the original...

2 Peter 3:9b
9b mh boulemenoV tinaV apolesqai, alla pantaV eiV metanoian cwrhsai

Notice the word cwrhsai in red. This word means "to have room for." This word is also used in John 2:6.

John 2:6
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, having room for cwrousai twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

The same root word, cwrew is used in 2 Peter 3:9. Just as the stone waterpots "have room for" twenty or thirty gallons apiece, God counsels all to "have room for" repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 single-handedly destroys the calvinistic doctrine of election. God does not elect individuals to heaven or hell. God has given man the gift of contrary choice. God has given every single person enough room in his or her heart to believe in Him. If man accepts God, God saves man. If man rejects God, God condems man to hell. God gives us the choice, and has made the provision for every single person to believe. That's why when God says He desires all men to be saved,

1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

...He means it! God does desire every person to be saved. God "made room" in each of us to come to repentance. Sadly, however, the majority will not. This is not because God chooses them to hell, but rather, because they choose themselves to hell. Since we all have enough room to believe, the following verse is true also...

1 Timothy 4
10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Again, God made the provision of salvation available to all men. He preached His gospel "in every creature under heaven."

Colossians 1:23b
23b the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

God wrote His law on everyone's heart, and gave them a conscience...

Romans 2
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Because of free will, many humans reject God. God has done everything He could do for us. He preached the gospel in us, wrote His law on our hearts, sent His Son to die for us, and counseled every person to have room for repentance. God does not choose man to hell as John Calvin believes...

--Jeremy

 

[1Way]

Oh, so you’re a universal-ist, hypocrisy and contradiction for everyone! enjoy

Oh, so you’re a universal-ist, hypocrisy and contradiction for everyone! enjoy

smaller said

"Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does."

No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop, and then he says

This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure...

By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! :thumb: You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do. You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

Go figure,

enjoy! No one respects a hypocrite.

 

[1Way]

testing, testing,

testing, testing,

Jeremy – This is from my free OnLineBible study program, I’m wanting to see if the Greek font shows up like your did on my computer! Previously I had no luck doing this a long time ago, so here goes something.

2Pe 3:9
ou bradunei o kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroyumei eiv hmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesyai alla pantav eiv metanoian cwrhsai

2Pe 3:9 ALT
The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, _but_ He is waiting patiently towards us, not wanting any to be lost _but_ [for] all to make room for repentance.
(ALT = Analytical Literal translation)

... God wishes "all" ([size=3.5]pantav[/size]) to come ([size=3.5]cwrhsai[/size] first aorist active infinitive of [size=3.5]chrew[/size], old verb, to make room).
(A T Robinson NT Word Pictures)

According to my OnLineBible study program, Joh 21:25 uses the same word as 2Pet 3.9 and the contextual use is certainly more about “having room for” than “not should come to”. Imagine the KJV’s translation rending of this same word in 2Pt 3.9 “should come to” instead of it’s own use in John 21:25(!) “could (not*) contain” (* the negation is supplied elsewhere), would read something like

“... I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books ... (!!!)

Now that would be a terrible translation, and was “probably” a factor for why they did not also weaken/alter the sense here too, I see that according to my Greek underlying text, these are the only two occasions for the same word and they happen to have the same voice tense mood.

Aorist = without specific regard to past, present, future)
Active = the subject as the doer or performer of the action.
Infinitive = the verb with "to" prefixed, as "to believe."
i.e. ("It is better to live than to die"),
("This was done to fulfil what the prophet said").

So in Jn 21.25 = the world {could not} contain/{could not} have room for) all the books ...

And
2Pt 3.9 = God counsels ... that all make room unto repentance.

God counsels ... (that) “all” “to make room” “for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “unto” “repentance”

God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (.....) “all” “(to) make room for” “repentance”

I wonder what a real scholar would say about that rendering.

Anyway, when we carefully consider the rest of the bible’s use of a word, so often it can become so clear as to the better understanding of that word’s meaning. Many times it outperforms lexical definitions.

Joh 21:25
estin de kai alla polla osa epoihsen o ihsouv atina ean grafhtai kay en oude auton oimai ton kosmon cwrhsai ta grafomena biblia amhn

Joh 21:25 EMTV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would have room for the books which would be written. Amen.

EMTV = English Majority Text Version Paul W. Esposito
ALT same rendering
WEB same rendering
GW = God's Word = same rendering
YLT “to have place for”

It’s seems that the use of “have room for” is well supported.

So, Jeremy, how do you get that Greek font to work? Ok, I used the symbol font, but I don’t know if it works right or not since my bible study program does not use symbol for my Greek font. There is a slight difference between the OLB and the Symbol fonts, do you just fix the odd characters manually if necessary?

 

[smaller]

Peace 1way

No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

And this is relevant how? Oh, that's right. Your words are meant to show the OWNERSHIP of 1way by THE ACCUSER of others. A thing that he hates to have REVEALED, yet he drools it continually, day and night.

smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop,

Ahem, I believe ALL PEOPLE are SAVED, so your FALSE accusations again RING as "hollow" as your positions.

By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

Some are given in this life to BELIEVE in The Son of God. I am such, not of my will, but of Him who CALLED me.

I already know you SAVED YOURSELF. That is why YOU CONDEMN OTHERS to eternal torture.

I also do not deny THAT SIN DWELLS IN ME and and EVIL IS PRESENT with me.

On this basis alone ALL OF YOU should be ASHAMED to condemn any other person to ETERNAL TORMENT, yet you are LOCKED INTO eternal judgment by the "master" of your own flesh, and as such you ALL represent the GREATEST FORM OF HATRED that satan could have trumphed up.

This from the very mouths that are supposed to PRESERVE the earth.

smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do.

I love it when the accuser grips a mans heart so fiercely that they FOAM AT THE MOUTH without CAUSE.

You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

No, that would be YOU who does such a foolish thing. I conceed that there is NO WAY to define or capture God and that ALL THINGS serve Him. You however have only 1way to define god and this is the little helpless god you have hacked out of your imaginations and demand others bow to. I call this IDOLATRY.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--In your post # 2 above (the 2nd post on this thread)--why do you have no Scripture text to respond with? Matters of theology concern Scripture. You didn't cite even one in response to my post on 2Pet. 3:9. This thread is about that text in particular. Don't evade that text. Justify your Arminian view of it.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way---Why not deal with the points made on 2Pet 3:9?? You are Arminian, let me see you marshal some verses which show a better interpretation of the verse. It appears that you don't want to do anything other than bury that issue under an avalanche of your usual evasions

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

i did not say it should be moved, only that it might be more appropriate in the attributes of God forum. i suggested it because the attributes of God forum deals more with predestination, calvinism, open theism and the like and this thread seems to be all about that.

in the end, it was Knights decision to move the thread so if you have a good reason why you feel it should be back in the general theology forum, take it up with him.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.