It is BUNK to say that 'All' in 2 Peter 3:9 Means 'Some of All Sorts'

[teel6060]

11 minutes of blather.

[CBALLEN]

2 Peter 3:9 is like someone telling their family(in Peter's case,the BELOVED) that " I've cooked for you all because I want to make sure everyone gets something to eat,I don't want anyone going hungry".The person cooking is speaking to the family,wanting all the family to get something to eat,they're no saying they are cooking or wanting everyone in the world to come and eat.Peter was making it clear that Jesus would only return when God's elect were all born and converted,& then the fireworks.

[CBALLEN]

Even in Arminian thinking,God knows all things.He knew both finite groups of people,the saved and the lost before time began.So if you think 2Peter 3:9 means every person head for head it makes no sense.Arminianism is teaching that God is patiently waiting for people to come and be saved that God knew before time NEVER WOULD,this makes God senile.2 Peter 3:9 is Peter speaking to the beloved about all the BELOVED that God chose to save.God is waiting for all His elect to be born &converted.

[sambackues]

As I review some of your statements, you have denied the Gospel. You are teaching salvation by works, or by human effort. 

[JeremyHuckins]

@sambackues Salvation was provided for all men by the grace of God, but if a person doesn't believe it then they will not be saved. I received the Holy Spirit after I was saved. He didn't come with Jibbering, but visions, and sensations, and knowledge. I am not denying the Gospel that I believed the day I believed. I don't serve a false humility by saying that, "It wasn't me that believed." I BELIEVED the gospel, and It has been counted to me for righteousness, not the works of the law.

[sambackues]

John 6 clearly refers to the elect, meaning that none of the elect will be lost, because they are God's flock. The rest, like Judas will be lost. Scripture shows pretty clearly that Judas was not of the elect. I would recommend that folks study Scripture carefully on this subject. We are saved by grace, and not of our own will or works. To say free will determines our destiny is to be in the sin of pride, thinking that you are better than those that don't believe. It is totally God's gift.

[theearstohear]

Longsuffering to "usward". "Usward" is who Peter is referencing. II Peter 1:1 tells us who Peter is addressing "to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." He's talking to believers. It follows that "usward" and the subsequent "all" are in reference to the elect who will eventually be saved. This is discussed in greater detail in Office Theology 109 - II Peter 3:9.

[JeremyHuckins]

@theearstohear Can't someone write to a particular person or group of people and then make an all encompassing statement to all whom repentance is still a possibility-Of course they can, and that was done in 2 Pet. 3:9. In the video I made my "2 peter 3:9" video to counter, Kielar makes your argument and than goes further on to the point I especially targeted in the video I made. I believe the "who's the audience" argument is rot. Every line in the epistle was not referencing the audience.

[JeremyHuckins]

@theearstohear "Office theology 109 - II Peter 3:9" Shows how someone manipulated 2 Peter 3:15 in order to suit a flawed theology. 2 Pet 3:15 actually says, "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;" And I don't have to crop the verse in order to suit my faith. "AND ACCOUNT..." Believers are to account the Lord's longsuffering-salvation. Doesn't mean that it MUST save.

[theearstohear]

@JeremyHuckins - And therein lies the difference. You believe that Christ died for people who will still end up in hell. I believe that Christ died for a people that will NEVER end up in hell (John 10:28). You believe that Christ died to make salvation a possible. I believe Christ died to make salvation actual. (Heb 10:14) You believe God requires the obedience of two for salvation. I believe that "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Rom 5:19)

[sambackues]

I agree skies vibrant. The key is WHO Peter is writing to, that is the elect. That says very clearly the correct context, and makes good sense with the rest of Scripture, especially John 6, with Jesus saying that none will be lost.

[JeremyHuckins]

@sambackues Can't someone write to a particular person or group of people and then make an all encompassing statement to all whom repentance is still a possibility-Of course they can, and that was done in 2 Pet. 3:9. In the video I made my "2 peter 3:9" video to counter, Kielar makes your argument and than goes further on to the point I especially targeted in the video I made. I believe the "who's the audience" argument is rot. Every line in the epistle was not referencing the audience.

[JeremyHuckins]

@sambackues Moreover, John 17:12 says, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." Judas was lost. Judas is representative of those 'sons of perdition' that fail. John 6:39 simply states that it is not the Father's will that Jesus loose one, but he has surely denied that disciple Judas. People deny Jesus by their works. See: Titus 1:16!

[cbdevidaljk1]

Agree with @coryalexanderbernard. Thankful that you wrestle with the Strongs/Spurgeon quote BUT the exegesis stands. Also logic: If this verse means every person, as long as more people are being born He must continue to wait to return. He won't be able to stop waiting. Only by thinking about a group of the elect does this verse make sense exegetically AND logically.

[coryalexanderbernard]

Please address the first half of the video to which you are responding when you can please. You only addressed the secondary point they made in advancing the doctrine with regards to the use of 'pas' but not the argument they made from context. Thanks.

[jacksmack77]

All a Calvinist does is try to explain away simple verses or concepts to promote their soul-damning wicked doctrine! They are utterly evil and malevolent and libidinously love their god, SATAN!

[mcfirefly3]

"... My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God." (quoted from Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists by Iain Murray)

[mcfirefly3]

"...some of all sorts of men': as if the Lord could not have said 'All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written 'all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it." ...

[mcfirefly3]

Spurgeon was very inconsistent on Calvinism. Here is another quote about the word "all:"

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. 'All men,' say they, -- 'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said 'some men' if he had meant some men. 'All men,' say they; 'that is, some of all sorts of men': a

[SkiesVibrant]

Actually Mark did a great job. Context, context, context. Who is Peter writing to?  Once you have answered that question... it all falls into place.