ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[MennoSota]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.



I know you want to believe it. But that's not what the chapter says. Have you actually read all of it?

Please, for your own sake, stop denying God's word.

If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.

Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.
In the chapter Peter is talking about the impending day of the Lord. He is talking to the elect. He is saying that God does not bring the impending day of the Lord because God will not allow even one of his elect to perish. All the elect will be saved before the day of the Lord arrives. It is for the sake of everyone on God's list that God does not come at this instant to judge the world. All the elect must be brought to faith first. This is why the Reformed churches are usually the most missional in focus. The message must be shared so that all the elect are provided with the good news.
Verse 9 is not about the whole world. If it were then God would be an utter failure since so many perish and go to hell.
Read the context young buck.

 

[Rosenritter]

Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.
In the chapter Peter is talking about the impending day of the Lord. He is talking to the elect. He is saying that God does not bring the impending day of the Lord because God will not allow even one of his elect to perish. All the elect will be saved before the day of the Lord arrives. It is for the sake of everyone on God's list that God does not come at this instant to judge the world. All the elect must be brought to faith first. This is why the Reformed churches are usually the most missional in focus. The message must be shared so that all the elect are provided with the good news.
Verse 9 is not about the whole world. If it were then God would be an utter failure since so many perish and go to hell.
Read the context young buck.

Maybe the author should have instead written "Not willing that the elect should perish, but that every elect should come to repentance" then. Perhaps Peter wasn't familiar with what the word "all" meant?

 

[7djengo7]

It is good to agree upon whatever we can, so I'm glad we can at least find common ground here. There are Dispensationalists for example who do not agree with us, that the Lord's Supper ought to be celebrated by the Body of Christ.

Wait, Rosenritter agrees that what you call "the Lord's Supper" is the same thing he calls "the Lord's Supper"? From what I've read in his posts, it doesn't look at all like he agrees with you, there. Rather, it looks as though he thinks that people, very decidedly, ought NOT participate in the rite you call the "celebration" of "the Lord's Supper", so as to avoid participating in idolatry.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.
If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.

Barb, this has been addressed ad naseum. I posted the entire chapter in hopes your skull would grasp the context around verse 9.

I don't think prooftexting is going to work for you. As you see, God would have no concern about the "elect" being saved if He had already decided to save them.

There's really no way for you to dance around that difficulty.

He is talking to the elect.

Then why would He be concerned about them being saved?

You're contradicting yourself. Why not take a little time to read it carefully and come up with a logically consistent explanation?

 

[MennoSota]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.


If they're already saved, why would God be worried that they might perish? C'mon.
If Peter is addressing only those whom God has already chosen to save, then God has no reason to be concerned for their salvation.




I don't think prooftexting is going to work for you. As you see, God would have no concern about the "elect" being saved if He had already decided to save them.

There's really no way for you to dance around that difficulty.



Then why would He be concerned about them being saved?

You're contradicting yourself. Why not take a little time to read it carefully and come up with a logically consistent explanation?

Do you imagine that all of God's elect are already reconciled even though they are not yet born? Stop being so silly.
God will not let even one of His elect perish without being reconciled.

Now, let's take your weak interpretation and see its flaws.
If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He failed to save all humanity from Adam to the present?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you imagine that all of God's elect are already reconciled even though they are not yet born? Stop being so silly.

If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.

 

[MennoSota]

If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.

You neglected to address this:

If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He failed to save all humanity from Adam to the present?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.

You neglected to address this

You need to resolve your own contradictions. But I'll allow you the one bunny trail before I remind you again:

If, as you claim, God does not will that any human should perish (meaning all humans, universally, across all time), then either all humans are saved...because God wills...or God failed and His will is pathetically weak.

Assuming that God doesn't give us the freedom to accept Him or reject Him. But He does give us free will. It might grieve Him if we don't accept Him, but He gives us the right to chose.

On the other hand, your position says that God is pathetically weak, having to be concerned whether or not He can save people He's already decided to save.

Since you declined to explain this contradiction in your beliefs, it's pretty clear that you have no way to do so.

Work on that.

 

[MennoSota]

Barbarian observes:
If He's already decided to save them, how do you think He would fail? Your argument assumes that His will is pathetically weak. Are you willing to pronounce that God is pathetically weak because He might fail to save those He's already decided to save?

I think you need to consider the contradictions in your position and do something to reconcile them.



You need to resolve your own contradictions. But I'll allow you the one bunny trail before I remind you again:



Assuming that God doesn't give us the freedom to accept Him or reject Him. But He does give us free will. It might grieve Him if we don't accept Him, but He gives us the right to chose.

On the other hand, your position says that God is pathetically weak, having to be concerned whether or not He can save people He's already decided to save.

Since you declined to explain this contradiction in your beliefs, it's pretty clear that you have no way to do so.

Work on that.

Interesting pretzel you have created.
God accomplishes His will, in my interpretation of the passage. Not one of His elect perish.
In your interpretation, God is hog-tied by humanities will so that He must, powerlessly, watch humans will themselves into hell. What God wills (that no one perish) never comes true. God fails. Yet, you seem pleased with God's failure. Why is that, Barb? Why are you pleased with God's failure?