Reading theology into texts

[Theo1689]

As a Calvinist you have already decided that God chose you to be saved, so you see that in every verse.

Seth makes somewhat of a good point here, but in my experience, it is non-Calvinists who do it far more than Calvinists.

As I said in a different post today, many people/pastors/apologists will "prime" your mind by putting a theology into your head, and once that's happened, direct you to a particular verse, where you are expected to find that precise doctrine in the text. That is the "power of suggestion". And it's also called "eisegesis", projecting a doctrine INTO the text, before you even read it, and before you allow the CONTEXT to create the meaning for you.

Non-Calvinists do this all the time, either by explicitly mentioning a doctrine (such as limited atonement), or by their church or group being so obsessed with "TULIP" that they've been trained to read every verse according to a checklist of "does this go against any of the petals of TULIP?"


A perfect example of this is 2 Pet. 3:8-9.

I firmly believe that NO ONE would ever interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 as teaching "unlimited atonement", unless that a doctrine were already SUGGESTED or IMPLIED to be in the text, by some external "teacher".

It is quite clear to me, that taking it into CONTEXT, it actually teaches "perseverance of the saints", God WILL ensure that ALL His people will be saved, and is NOT WILLING that ANY of them perish. But in their fight against "Calvinism", critics of Calvinism have DESTROYED a wonderful verse teaching God's faithfulness, and instead replaced it with a teaching of false hope.

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is about a PARTICULAR group, "us-ward", who are the "beloved" of God, and who we see from 1 Peter are "the elect", God's chosen people.

This verse is NOT about "everyone in the world", but only the "beloved". It excludes people such as the "scoffers" of 2 Pet. 3:3, for instance, who are contrasted with "the beloved".

Notice that "not willing that any should perish" follows IMMEDIATELY after "us-ward".
It is the "us-ward" whom God is not willing for any to perish.
It is the "us-ward" whom God will ensure all come to repentance.


So not only do they destroy a wonderful teaching of God's faithfulness and the success of the Saviour to save ALL of God's people, their theology runs into another problem. It says that God is "not willing that ANY should perish". But if "ANY" means "everyone in the world", and not merely "the beloved", then God FAILED. God's will can be thwarted by the will of a sinner. What a DREADFUL (and blasphemous) thing to believe!

 

[TomFL]

A perfect example of this is 2 Pet. 3:8-9.

Indeed if Calvinism is true and every thought desire and deed is determined by God what need does he have for longsuffering.. All that is needed is regeneration on his time schedule

2 Pet. 3:9 —KJV
“¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Long suffering is only applicable if man has a part to play

 

[Theo1689]

Indeed if Calvinism is true and every thought desire and deed is determined by God what need does he have for longsuffering..

Where does the text say that long-suffering is a "need"?

All that is needed is regeneration on his time schedule

And "his time schedule" INCLUDED that "longsuffering".
I'm sorry that you refuse God to be allowed to be God.

Long suffering is only applicable if man has a part to play

Prove it.

 

[TomFL]

Where does the text say that long-suffering is a "need"?



And "his time schedule" INCLUDED that "longsuffering".
I'm sorry that you refuse God to be allowed to be God.



Prove it.

2 Pet. 3:9 —KJV
“¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

God is long suffering only as long as man is permitted to freely resist or fail to repent

and there is the free will you deny

 

[Theo1689]

God is long suffering only as long as man is permitted to freely resist or fail to repent

Another bogus claim you are unable to support.

 

[TomFL]

Seth makes somewhat of a good point here, but in my experience, it is non-Calvinists who do it far more than Calvinists.

As I said in a different post today, many people/pastors/apologists will "prime" your mind by putting a theology into your head, and once that's happened, direct you to a particular verse, where you are expected to find that precise doctrine in the text. That is the "power of suggestion". And it's also called "eisegesis", projecting a doctrine INTO the text, before you even read it, and before you allow the CONTEXT to create the meaning for you.

Non-Calvinists do this all the time, either by explicitly mentioning a doctrine (such as limited atonement), or by their church or group being so obsessed with "TULIP" that they've been trained to read every verse according to a checklist of "does this go against any of the petals of TULIP?"


A perfect example of this is 2 Pet. 3:8-9.

I firmly believe that NO ONE would ever interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 as teaching "unlimited atonement", unless that a doctrine were already SUGGESTED or IMPLIED to be in the text, by some external "teacher".

It is quite clear to me, that taking it into CONTEXT, it actually teaches "perseverance of the saints", God WILL ensure that ALL His people will be saved, and is NOT WILLING that ANY of them perish. But in their fight against "Calvinism", critics of Calvinism have DESTROYED a wonderful verse teaching God's faithfulness, and instead replaced it with a teaching of false hope.

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is about a PARTICULAR group, "us-ward", who are the "beloved" of God, and who we see from 1 Peter are "the elect", God's chosen people.

This verse is NOT about "everyone in the world", but only the "beloved". It excludes people such as the "scoffers" of 2 Pet. 3:3, for instance, who are contrasted with "the beloved".

Notice that "not willing that any should perish" follows IMMEDIATELY after "us-ward".
It is the "us-ward" whom God is not willing for any to perish.
It is the "us-ward" whom God will ensure all come to repentance.

Interestingly Calvin had this to say

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

 

[Theo1689]

Interestingly Calvin had this to say

Not sure why you think this is "interesting".
Last time I checked, there was no "Book of Calvin" in the Bible.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

You appear to have skipped over the bolded section.

 

[Theo1689]

Interestingly Calvin had this to say

Well, if you want to admit that Calvin is authoritative, I guess we can go with that...

 

[TomFL]

Another bogus claim you are unable to support.

How else are you going to explain long suffering for them to repent

Was God long suffering because of his own delay in bringing them to repentance ?

 

[Theo1689]

How else are you going to explain long suffering for them to repent

The fact that you are asking me that (and yet again, trying to fallaciously shift the burden of proof away from me and onto yourself), proves that your claim is nothing but an unsubstantiated ASSUMPTION on your part.

So you can't demonstrated your bogus claim to be true.
So we are done.
You've lost.
Have a nice day.

 

[TomFL]

Not sure why you think this is "interesting".
Last time I checked, there was no "Book of Calvin" in the Bible.



You appear to have skipped over the bolded section.

Is there some special significance you want to attach to the bolded part now in red

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

In context that is mankind

 

[Theo1689]

Is there some special significance you want to attach to the bolded part now in red

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

In context that is mankind

So are you claiming that John Calvin is authoritative?

 

[TomFL]

The fact that you are asking me that (and yet again, trying to fallaciously shift the burden of proof away from me and onto yourself), proves that your claim is nothing but an unsubstantiated ASSUMPTION on your part.

So you can't demonstrated your bogus claim to be true.
So we are done.
You've lost.
Have a nice day.

Running away again ?

It is rather obvious any delay must be their doing if God is longsuffering over it

Your bald denial does not change that

You have a nice day

 

[TomFL]

So are you claiming that John Calvin is authoritative?

No I just find it amusing how you accused non Calvinists for reading the text in the same manner as Calvin

 

[Theo1689]

Running away again ?

Nope.
You are one who QUIT the race by being unable to prove your bogus claim.

It is rather obvious any delay must be their doing if God is longsuffering over it

No, it is not the least bit "obvious".

I find that cultists often claim their beliefs are "obvious" or "clear" or "plain", when they can't defend them.

If it were TRULY "obvious", then it would be trivial for you to DEMONSTRATE it.
Yet you can't.

And instead of admitting YOUR defeat, you accuse ME of "running away".
I'm STILL HERE.
I'm STILL WAITING for you to prove your bogus claim.
You can't do it.

Your bald denial does not change that

Neither does your "bald" assertion.

 

[Theo1689]

No I just find it amusing how you accused non Calvinists for reading the text in the same manner as Calvin

... for reading the text in the same manner as YOU FALSELY CLAIM Calvin read it.

If Calvin were here today, he'd point out how you are misrepresenting him.
But the said thing is, even if Calvin were here to do that, you wouldn't accept his testimony.

 

[TomFL]

... for reading the text in the same manner as YOU FALSELY CLAIM Calvin read it.

If Calvin were here today, he'd point out how you are misrepresenting him.
But the said thing is, even if Calvin were here to do that, you wouldn't accept his testimony.

Not at all for if you read the rest of his note you will see how he takes away on one hand what he gave on the other

He basically appeals to duplicity in God

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 35

 

[TomFL]

Seth makes somewhat of a good point here, but in my experience, it is non-Calvinists who do it far more than Calvinists.

As I said in a different post today, many people/pastors/apologists will "prime" your mind by putting a theology into your head, and once that's happened, direct you to a particular verse, where you are expected to find that precise doctrine in the text. That is the "power of suggestion". And it's also called "eisegesis", projecting a doctrine INTO the text, before you even read it, and before you allow the CONTEXT to create the meaning for you.

Non-Calvinists do this all the time, either by explicitly mentioning a doctrine (such as limited atonement), or by their church or group being so obsessed with "TULIP" that they've been trained to read every verse according to a checklist of "does this go against any of the petals of TULIP?"


A perfect example of this is 2 Pet. 3:8-9.

I firmly believe that NO ONE would ever interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 as teaching "unlimited atonement", unless that a doctrine were already SUGGESTED or IMPLIED to be in the text, by some external "teacher".

It is quite clear to me, that taking it into CONTEXT, it actually teaches "perseverance of the saints", God WILL ensure that ALL His people will be saved, and is NOT WILLING that ANY of them perish. But in their fight against "Calvinism", critics of Calvinism have DESTROYED a wonderful verse teaching God's faithfulness, and instead replaced it with a teaching of false hope.

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is about a PARTICULAR group, "us-ward", who are the "beloved" of God, and who we see from 1 Peter are "the elect", God's chosen people.

This verse is NOT about "everyone in the world", but only the "beloved". It excludes people such as the "scoffers" of 2 Pet. 3:3, for instance, who are contrasted with "the beloved".

Allow me to inform you of the defect in your argument

Those God is long suffering with are in danger of perishing if they don't repent. That cannot be limited to those Paul calls beloved and have

2 Pet. 1:1 —ESV
“To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

They are not in need of repentance so as to avoid perishing

Enen the Calvinist commentary JFB notes more than the beloved are spoken of

any—not desiring that any, yea, even that the scoffers, should perish, which would be the result if He did not give space for repentance.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 522.

As Did Calvin

and Barnes

Not willing that any should perish. That is, he does not desire it or wish it. His nature is benevolent, and he sincerely desires the eternal happiness of all, and his patience towards sinners proves that he is willing that they should be saved. If he were not willing, it would be easy for him to cut them off, and exclude them from hope at once.

 

[Theo1689]

Allow me to inform you of the defect in your argument

<Chuckle>
1Kings 20:11 ‘Let not him who straps on his armor boast himself as he who takes it off.’”
Or in more modern terms, "Get over yourself."

Those God is long suffering with are in danger of perishing if they don't repent.

Since they WILL repent, your point is moot.

That cannot be limited to those Paul calls beloved and have

2 Pet. 1:1 —ESV
“To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

They are not in need of repentance so as to avoid perishing

What?!
So you're claiming some people can be saved without repenting?!
SERIOUSLY?!

Enen the Calvinist commentary JFB notes more than the beloved are spoken of

Sorry, I can't find the "Book of JFB" within the 66 books of the Bible.

Why do you keep RUNNING AWAY from the Bible?

 

[TomFL]

<Chuckle>
1Kings 20:11 ‘Let not him who straps on his armor boast himself as he who takes it off.’”
Or in more modern terms, "Get over yourself."

Nothing in my comments was about me
but it seems you are obsessed for some reason

Since they WILL repent, your point is moot.

Hello they already repented

2 Pet. 1:1 —ESV
“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:”

Those beloved do not need to repent - they already did and they will never perish

So Barnes, Calvin, JFB all reject your view

And you can protest all you want about what books are in the bible

There is no book of Theo there either

and the absence of a need of the beloved to repent migrates again your view

So while you castigated non Calvinists for their interpretation of 2Pe 3:9

we can see your claim suffers from serious defects

BTW how you come up with the idea that I claimed men can get saved without repentance is a great confusion