P: God *will* destroy most of the earth’s inhabitants in Isaiah 24:1 AND also destroy most of the Resurrected dead in Revelation 20:15.

C: God *wants* to destroy most of the earth’s inhabitants in Isaiah 24:1 AND also to destroy most of the Resurrected dead in Revelation 20:15.

The Premise (P) is true and the Conclusion (C) is also true; because the premise leads to the conclusion of the argument.

The argument is intended to demonstrate that “wanting” to do something is tantamount to “doing it”.

Although it is possible to do something “reluctantly” it is extremely unlikely that this particular situation could arise in the example of Isaiah 24 and Revelation 20.

Therefore, it is more than likely that God would destroy all those people because he “wants” them destroyed, but it is highly implausible that he would only “reluctantly” destroy them.

Consequently, “God does NOT want all people to be saved” assuming that he wanted to destroy most of them; and therefore, 2 Peter 3:9 cannot be absolutely true because there are exceptions to this particular rule as clearly demonstrated by the Law of Ezekiel 18:4, which provides the legal and legitimate basis of the future genocide in Isaiah 24 and Revelation 20.

2 Peter 3:9 cannot be absolutely true; since there are exceptions to the rule as clearly demonstrated by the Law of God (Ezekiel 18:4), which provides the legal and legitimate basis of the future genocide in Isaiah 24 and Revelation 20.

Therefore, Ezekiel 18, Isaiah 24 and Revelation 20 have provided both the theoretical and practical *exceptions* to the rule of 2 Peter 3:9.

Consequently, it is not always true that “God wants all people to be saved”, but it is only true in the absence of the aforementioned.

Discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk