The Narrow Path Ministries

2 Peter 3:9. “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.”

When Peter says that “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” who is he referring to when he says all? The word all is clearly restricted by the context to the pronoun us. Peter is clearly referring to believers, to Christians when he says “us” (2 Pet. 1:1). God is not willing that any of us (that is, Christians) should perish, but that all of us (God’s people) should come to repentance. If Peter had meant that God is not willing that any person in the whole world will perish, then this passage would teach universal salvation, for the Bible teaches that God does have the power to carry out His will. “No one can take II Pet. 3:9 to support the Arminian position without wrestling it out of context, misapplying it to the reprobate, and breaking basic rules for the interpretation of plain English or Greek.

By Brian Schwertley

This argument rests very largely on the assumption that God's will is always done. Thus, God only wants the elect to repent, because only they actually do repent. The starting premise is merely a Calvinistic assumption--and not a particularly defensible one from scripture.

The Arminian interpretation of this verse does no violence to any of the rules of English or Greek, does not ignore context, and is not threatened by the desperate statements of Calvinists to the contrary.

The Calvinist consistently takes references to contemporary believers (e.g., the ones addressed by Peter) and, without warrant, pretends that this term is equivalent to some pre-set number of people, including many not yet born, who have been predestined to be "the elect." There is no compelling reason to import this concept into Peter's reference to believers of his day. Whatever he may say about his believing readers does not necessarily presuppose that they are part of a preordained number who must be saved while those outside that number must never be saved. This is what Calvinists are insisting upon when they make the argument presented above.

While a statement about God's will concerning a group of believers living in the first century might justly be extrapolated to apply to other believing readers living in later ages, this is not the same thing as importing into every reference to believers the Calvinist concept of a pre-elected, hermetically-sealed number of individuals. Those who believe at any given moment are the believers to whom generic statements about "believers" apply.

In Peter's use of the term "all," it is not necessary to assume that he is restricting his range of consideration only to his believing readers. It is quite possible, in the context, for him to have in view God's desire that no human being be lost. There is no reason to assume that Peter disagreed with God's words in Ezekiel 33:11.

On the other hand, if by "all" Peter did mean only his believing readers, then he would be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance. This is a possible meaning of his statement, but considerably less likely, in my judgment.

I could imagine Peter saying that God is not willing that any believer would perish, but it is more difficult to understand why he would suggest that God is desiring all believers to repent. Believers, by definition, are those who have already repented. To make "all" refer only to believers would mean, in context, that God was waiting for all of Peter's believing readers to repent before coming to judge the world.

I doubt that anyone could conclusively prove the Calvinist to be wrong in taking Peter's words this way, but I think the non-Calvinistic interpretation of the verse is more natural and less problematic.

Exellent thoughts Steve. Well said.

Here's another angle:

"Verse 9 explains... the connection to the Great Commission. Notice the reason Christ seems to be slow in returning is His "longsuffering." But, longsuffering to whom? While the Lord is not willing that any perish, His "longsuffering" is directed toward US, not to the lost. Is Peter saying that believers might be lost? No! He is saying that God is patient with US to complete the Great Commission, to preach the Gospel to all the nations so that many from every tribe and nation whom God loves will not perish! Peter places the responsibility squarely (albeit gently) on the shoulders of Christians. Corporately, we are the ones who delay or hasten the coming of Christ, the Day of the Lord, and the destruction of the wicked." http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/2peter3.html

So the "us" is the believers, and the "any" and "all" is referring to non-believers.

To Steve's explanation I would like to add that in the phrase "but is longsuffering toward us", the referent of "us" is not necessarily "us Christians". As I see it, the "us" is more likely to denote "us humans".

I'm going to keep this short because my other post was huge.
2 Peter has the contrast of "you/us" and "them", especially in chapter 3. The "you/us" is the audience he is writing to in 2 Peter: "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:[/size]. He is writing to believers/Christians.
From there on out, when he says "us/you/we" he is referring to believers.
When he says "them" or "they", he is referring to: "scoffers [who] will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires" "They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" "they deliberately overlook...", etc.
Let us take this to chapter 3.
Chapter 3 is a polemic answer to the scoffers and mockers asking why Christ hasn't yet returned.
The answer given is thus:
in verses 5-7 a reminder is given that God is in control and destroyed the earth in Noah's flood. In verse 8 we believers (us Christians) are told to remember that 1000 years to us can seem like a day to God, so saying "its been so long and He hasn't returned yet" is not a good argument to use about someone who is timeless.
So building on the preceding;
1) we have scoffers and mockers; "they" who doubt Christ is returning (or taking too long) and say nothing really has changed since creation
2) "They" forget that God is in fact in control, and destroyed the earth, and can do it again
3) 1000 years is but a drop in the bucket to the timeless God

we move to the controversy verse in question:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Since the word "beloved" appears in verse 8, and "you" appears in verse 9, and not "they", the subjects in question are "you/us/we" and not "they/them".
The reason why Christ has not come back yet is because he is patient towards you believers, not wishing that any of you believers should perish, but that all of you believers should reach repentance.
Verse 15 tells us to "count the patience of our Lord as salvation".

Verses 10-12 underscore again the fact that destruction is coming, but not for "us/you/we" but for "they/them".

It is quite simple. To say that the objects of patience in verse 9 are "they/them", and the reason that Christ hasn't returned is because he is waiting for "them" to come to repentance (salvation), would mean that Christ will NEVER come back.

No one here is a universalist and believes that everyone will be saved. To say that verse 9 is arguing that the reason why Christ hasn't returned is because he is waiting for everyone to be saved is to say either that a) everyone will be saved so He can return, or b) Christ will never return.

The only alternative to this interpretation is to say that the patience is applied to "you", the believers.

This is consistent: Christ is waiting for all believers (that will become believers) to come to repentance, and then He will return to gather His own. Then the destruction comes. The Noahaic imagery is spot-on for this.

The scoffers and mockers of the world who doubt Christ is returning are very similiar to the scoffers and mockers in Noah's day who doubted it was going to rain. But the reason why God held off the flood until He did was to be patient so that Noah could get all his family to safety. God was not waiting for every human on earth to get inside the ark. The rain would never have came. God's purpose was indeed to destroy the people. In Genesis, He flooded the whole earth and saved a family. In 2 peter, we read of His impending destruction of the entire earth, but waiting for His family to all be called and accounted for.

Thank you for reading.

Welcome Bilbofett,

No one here is a universalist and believes that everyone will be saved.

Oh...I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you. Keep reading.

Maybe this short video from my blog will help this discussion.

Mark.

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/web ... blog_id=92

2 Peter 3:9. “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.”

To say that verse 9 is arguing that the reason why Christ hasn't returned is because he is waiting for everyone to be saved is to say either that a) everyone will be saved so He can return, or b) Christ will never return.

I don't think either (a) or (b) follows from the verse.

Certainly God is not willing that any should perish, but as Steve Gregg pointed out, God's will is not always done. Otherwise, the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is meaningless.
So it does not follow that if "us" refers to "us humans" that every inndividual on earth would have to become a disciple before Jesus' return --- or that if they don't, Jesus will never return.

There is no reason for insisting that the "us" in this passage could not refer to "us humans" in general. Peter's prior use of "us" in reference to "us disciples" doesn't require that his every subsequent use of "us" must be so limited.

What the passage is saying, as I understand it, is the coming of Christ is that, because of God's great compassion in desiring that everyone should come to repentance, the return of Christ is delayed.

However, God's patience will not endure forever. Eventually Christ will return, seemingly at a time when wickedness will have reached a height as never before.

bilbofett wrote:No one here is a universalist and believes that everyone will be saved. To say that verse 9 is arguing that the reason why Christ hasn't returned is because he is waiting for everyone to be saved is to say either that a) everyone will be saved so He can return, or b) Christ will never return.

Hi Bilbo! It's good to see you.

I agree with your conclusion about what 2 Peter 3:9 means. But I actually agree with Paidon's counterargument. (No, that's not schizophrenic, keep reading.)

I don't think it's necessary to read v9 as setting up the condition that will be fulfilled before Christ's return. It doesn't say "This will happen before the Lord returns." It says that God isn't being slow--He's being patient. He's delaying the return of Christ for a purpose. The purpose is that He doesn't "wish/will/want" any (of "us") to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Well, suppose I'm the captain of a ship and I'm getting ready to push off. There are people who haven't arrived at the docks, and I don't want to leave any behind, so I don't leave as soon as I could. I give them longer to make it, and maybe I spend some time making phone calls and the like, trying to track them down. In that case, I could say that I'm staying because I don't want to leave anyone behind, but rather I want everyone to make it. (That's parallel to v9.) Does that mean I would have to wait forever? No... There might be a limit to my patience.

Whether or not that picture is a good analogy for how God saves human beings is a broader question, depending on what the rest of the Bible says. I think this particular passage can be read either way. It makes sense within either an Arminian understanding or within a Calvinistic understanding. I agree with Paidon that "There is no reason for insisting that the 'us' in this passage could not refer to 'us humans' in general." It depends on the larger Biblical context.

So, while this verse isn't the Arminian proof text some people make it out to be, it's also not a good Calvinistic proof text.