DOESN’T THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH?
The Apostle Peter clearly states that God is not willing that any should perish. "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" ( 2 Peter 3:9 ).
How can we square this verse with predestination? If it is not the will of God to elect everyone unto salvation, how can the Bible then say that God is not willing that any should perish?
In the first place we must understand that the Bible speaks of the will of God in more than one way. For example, the Bible speaks of what we call God’s sovereign efficacious will. The sovereign will of God is that will by which God brings things to pass with absolute certainty. Nothing can resist the will of God in this sense. By his sovereign will he created the world. The light could not have refused to shine.
The second way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to what we call his preceptive will. God’s preceptive will refers to his commands, his laws. It is God’s will that we do the things he mandates. We are capable of disobeying this will. We do in fact break his commandments. We cannot do it with impunity. We do it without his permission or sanction. Yet we do it. We sin.
A third way the Bible speaks of the will of God has reference to God’s disposition, to what is pleasing to him. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked. There is a sense in which the punishment of the wicked does not bring joy to God. He chooses to do it because it is good to punish evil. He delights in the righteousness of his judgment but is “sad” that such righteous judgment must be carried out. It is something like a judge sitting on a bench and sentencing his own son to prison.
Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, “God is not willing that any should perish,” and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would then be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.
Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing than perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.
The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may simply be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.
Though the third definition is a possible and attractive one to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would demand the first definition and would be one more strong passage in favor of predestination.
In two different ways the text may easily be harmonized with predestination. In no way does it support Arminianism. Its only other possible meaning would be universalism, which would then bring it into conflict with everything else the Bible says against universalism.
Technorati Tags: Calvinism
3 comments:
I appreciate your exploration of this verse as it is one that I have been seeking to figure out myself. I hesitate to call myself a Calvinist, however when it really all boils down, that's kind of where I'm at theologically. But I do have a little bit of a problem with your conclusion regarding the relationship of the word "us" to the use of the word "anyone". Maybe I'm missing something here because I found another fellow who argued for the same conclusion, albeit in a much more abrasive manner. But it seems to me that even if Paul is addressing the elect, the word "anyone" would still mean "anyone". I haven't studied the Greek on this but it seems as though the English would read something like "any one of you" if he was referring specifically to the readers of his letter instead of saying "anyone", giving the impression that he is speaking to them about the whole of humanity. In which case, the third definition of God's will seems to fit better.
Like I said, I'm just trying to figure out what Paul is saying here exactly and there didn't seem to be sufficient evidence to believe that "anyone" refers to the elect. But I may be missing something too. Thanks again for sharing.
I feel a little silly after my comments on your post. I realized after the fact the your whole post was actually the words of RC Sproul. My comments remain the same but I realize now that they are ultimately directed toward Sproul's thoughts on this verse. If you have any further explanation on this please feel free to share it.
Luke - I think I understand your point and have no issue with it. At the same time, I'm not a scholar ... especially in language. I cannot speak definitively to this yet I tend to agree, in English, the verbiage could have been more clear. I don't know if it's a translation problem, an English language weakness, or it is simply as is.
What I wrestle with is making the sentence make sense and without concluding as Sproul does, I cannot square this with the balance of Scripture. Doing as he does causes no harm to my understanding of other passages. And so on ... so I netted out with Sproul.
At the same time, yes, I sure wish God was more clear.
:)
Post a Comment