“It is finished” (John 19:30). What exactly was finished when Jesus uttered those words? What could He have accomplished through ending His three years of public ministry by dying via the most torturous and humiliating form of execution mankind has ever devised? The answer is that what Jesus finished on the cross was a business transaction. We are all familiar with the idea of making business deals. A lot do it quite regularly in our day to day lives. Yet we seldom think of the death of Christ in those terms, when in fact what He accomplished on the cross was the most important business transaction in all of history.

But what is the point of this kind of deal? In order to understand its significance, it is important to first understand our state of nature. An old philosopher once said that man is born free. He is clearly mistaken, because the Bible teaches that we are born enslaved to sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We look at the evil people in the world around us and think that we are somehow better. Yet the word of God does not mince words when it talks about the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). This is a condition from which we cannot escape by our own power, which is why Jesus said “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). When we sin, we incur a debt on our record. Our payment for this debt is slavery in this life, and condemnation in the next, hence the scriptural saying: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This is why in the end, those who remain slaves to sin will experience the fiery wrath of God on Judgment day, when He cleanses the world of every last trace of evil, including those who scripture says are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), who are destined for shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Read the rest of this entry

In the comments field to one of Adam’s recent posts, [1] a visitor called Trolando asked the following question regarding John MacArthur’s explanation of the word boulomai with respect to its appearance in 2 Peter 3:9.

Then what do you make of 2 Peter 3:9? … Not only is it stating that God wants (boulomai) all to be saved, but also no one to be lost, which makes an even stronger case for universalism. [2]

Since I know that I have addressed this passage before, [3] I went looking to see if I had published it anywhere on this web site. But I could not find it so perhaps I never have published it here. So allow me to correct that and simultaneously answer Trolando’s question. My comment at the Duane’s Mind blog was answering the question posed to me by Marc Kay, “What do you think 2 Peter 3:9 means?”

~*~

Very simply, 2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what it says. Every time this passage is brought into question, the problem hinges less upon what it means and more importantly upon what it says. You see, most people don’t even know what it says because they have become accustomed to using the passage as a proof-text, reading it in isolation rather than interpreting it in context, as though Peter’s second epistle was not actually a complete letter but a collection of pithy sayings. When you start asking relevant questions about Peter’s second letter, like who he was writing to, you move beyond proof-texting errors into responsible exegesis and consequently discover what it says…

…and therefore what it means.

But before we get into that, let us first assume that it means what you think it does, that God does not want anyone whatsoever to perish. And let us further assume along with you that there are no distinctions in what God wills, that he has but one will. If we understand his singular will here in the decretive sense (i.e., that which God decrees or ordains shall happen), then we discover a violent contradiction between this understanding and what the Bible declares elsewhere, in so many places, about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. If this passage means that it is God’s holy decree that no one whatsoever perish, then the fact that so many ultimately end up perishing means that God can—and does—fail, that his purposes can be thwarted, that he sometimes cannot do as he pleases, that he is neither almighty nor sovereign. It shipwrecks countless scriptures.

In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence. That is bad enough in itself, but it is made all the worse by the wealth of scriptural evidence of God not only being able to violate man’s free will but his precisely doing so, from Genesis clear through to Revelation (cf. Exo. 21:13; Gen. 20:6, Rev. 17:17). So the fact that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 creates such violent contradictions, plus the fact that its underlying assumption is without scriptural support at best and contradicted by numerous biblical passages at worse, we have ample, solid reason to consider such an interpretation as highly improbable.

If we understand his singular will here in the prescriptive sense (i.e., that which God prescribes or commands should happen), then we find no overt contradictions with other scriptures. But it does create a problematic dissonance in the context of the passage, for it seems out of harmony with not only the text itself but the context of the letter overall. It does not exactly make sense to understand it as saying, “God is patient with you, not commanding anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.” While it is certainly true that God commands everyone to come to repentance, it is nonsensical to think Peter is reminding his readers that God does not command anyone to perish. That creates a monkey wrench in the flow of the text that gives us reason to think it is a rather improbable reading.

So if God’s will here is in neither a decretive nor prescriptive sense, what other sense is there for us to take it in? Well, that is a conclusion I do not feel we have reached yet. This passage certainly is referring to God’s will in its decretive sense, but the question is less theological and more exegetical; in other words, the issue is not about the nature of God’s will so much as the identity of who Peter is talking about. Many people like you use this as a proof-text that God’s purpose was to save literally all mankind without discrimination, an easy and tempting instinct when this verse is isolated from its context—the chapter, the letter overall, and the letter that preceded it. But the passage itself is clear about who is being referred to. First of all, the complete verse reads:

“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.”

And that is the vital key so many people overlook, “toward you.” Peter has a specific group of hearers; the context of “anyone” and “everyone” that Peter is referring to is defined by the “you” he is writing to. That direct relationship is important to note. Consider the following illustration.

Imagine that you have called a staff meeting. As you stand looking over the people gathered in the board room, you announce, “We cannot afford to have anyone miss this information, so before I get to what I have to tell you, I need to know if everyone is here.” Obviously you are not asking if all six billion people on the planet are present in the board room; moreover, you are certainly not asking if all people who have existed, do exist, and will ever exist are present. The “anyone” and “everyone” are directly related to the “you” being addressed—your staff members.

The Lord is patient toward you, Peter said. That is a vital key too often missed. The Lord does not want anyone (of those he is patient toward) to perish; he wants everyone (of those he is patient toward) to come to repentance. So then who is this “you” that Peter is addressing in his letter? All mankind indiscriminately?

Back up to the first verse. We find Peter saying, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” So those he is speaking to in this letter are not all mankind without discrimination but rather his beloved who he has already written to once before. Moreover, the beginning of the letter (2 Peter 1:1) is addressed even more clearly still; Peter is writing to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Obviously what Peter has to say is not addressed to all mankind because not all mankind has obtained a faith of equal standing with the apostles by the righteousness of Christ. He is addressing the faithful flock of Christ. Peter had a specific mission with a specific message.

There is further importance to the fact that this message is being addressed to friends that he has written to before. What will we find out about these people from that first letter of his? We will find out that they are (1 Peter 1:1-5) “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” whom God has mercifully caused “to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

That is who God is patient with in 2 Peter 3:9, who he will not have perish but have come to repentance. God is patient toward you, my beloved, to whom I have written before, God’s faithful elect, chosen by the Father through the Spirit for the Son. God is patient with you, such that every single one will be redeemed.

This understanding gains even further support still when you read elsewhere in the Scriptures that God has a select remnant of Israel chosen by grace and a select number of Gentiles. God is not slow in keeping his promise; he is being patient, waiting until that full number of God’s chosen has been fulfilled (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15). In other words, the day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been brought forth and redeemed. Believers must not be impatient with God and his timetable, but faithful and praising the glory of his plan set from eternity, humbled and giving thanks to his incomprehensible mercy. Not only does this interpretation make sense, it is the only one that does.

Under an unbiblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very little sense because it holds that God’s plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet untold masses have and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet untold masses have not and will not. On this view the sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.

Under a biblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes perfect sense—within the context of that verse itself, the chapter, the letter overall, the previous letter, letters written by other apostles, and so forth. God’s own righteous glory is more important to God than the sinful desires of mankind. As John Piper has said: for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory, “he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry … Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?”

1. Morgan (2011).
2. Trolando (2011, August 1). Comment to Morgan (2011).
3. Smart (2009, November 3). Comment to Proud (2009).

References:

• Morgan, Adam (2011, July 20). “It is God’s will that all men be saved.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]
  http://aristophrenium.com
• Proud, Duane (2009, October 1). “God Saves! (Or, Jesus is not a rope).” Duane’s Mind. [Blog].
  http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/

Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

I had a Facebook conversation with a friend of a friend, Sylwia, a while back and I thought I would share it with you. As you can see, the conversation focused mainly on love and salvation with us coming to the conclusion at the end that we are talking about different Gods. I’ll leave it up to you to decide for yourselves who you think has a more accurate portrait of the one true God.

Ashleigh: Just saw some crazy Christian guy on a street corner, yelling at people about Jesus and sin. I understand having faith – I do too and I’m thankful that Jesus died for me and my sin, but you shouldn’t yell at people who don’t and tell them they’re going to hell. It’s not really the right way to go about it..

This guy wasn’t being gentle at all. And there were 2 guys with him, holding signs and one of them actually said God HATES drunks and homosexuals. It wasn’t getting a good response from the crowd

Sylwia: God loves drunks and homosexuals the people themselves, but not the action of sin. Makes me so annoyed that people miss the point, and then others think because of it that the message contradicts itself…. Hate doesn’t make other people love, only loving others despite their failings can do that :)

Ashleigh: That’s right! It’s not a Christian’s job to judge, so I think people like that should just shut up because they make the rest of us look bad

Sylwia: Exactly :)

Adam: I thought that’s what Jesus and his apostles did…went to various town and addressed the crowds. The language used may have been different but there was still condemnation of sinners. Jesus turned almost everyone off due to his witness to the truth. Read the rest of this entry

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry