2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--in your last post--of this thread the the 78th, you are continuing to understand "all" in 2 Pet. 3:9 as meaning "all" without exclusion, "all" as if each and everyone of mankind is meant by it. That is contradictory to Peter's meaning when he speaks of "us," the elect to whom he addresses his letter. By loading Peter's words "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" with every (each and everyone of mankind), you are saying that God's longsuffering so that "all" should come to repentance is self-defeating, because if that is the aim of His longsuffering, it is not at all accomplished, because the stubborn fact is that of the WHOLE of mankind, most DO perish and His longsuffering, if toward the WHOLE, fails to accomplish what Paul says God meant to accomplish by it.
BUT if by "not willing that any should perish," and "all should come to repentance" Paul was referring not to the WHOLE of humanity, but to a certain select (elect) group, then God is NOT engaging in a self-defeating and futile exercise, but will accomplish exactly that which He intended by His longsuffering-- as Paul says in v. 15, "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."
The longsuffering is not a failed attempt to accomplish His will, but is salvation.

This view MUST be true because the whole of humanity is NEVER included in God's redemptive purpose.

Some are those spoken of in Proverbs 16:4--"God has made all things for Himself--even the wicked for the day of evil." Some are "appointed" to disobedience. (1 Pet. 2:8,9) while others are appointed to obtain salvation (1 Th.5:9); Some are "like natural brute beasts, made to be caught and destroyed." 2 Pet. 2:12; to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to others it is not given (Mt.13:11; Lk. 8:10;
Mk. 4: 11,12, 34) and Jesus therefore reveals secrets to His disciples in private so those who are not appointed to life will not hear. Since by greater knowledge greater punishment comes upon the disobedient, Christ's hiding knowledge from them is a mercy toward them, even though it is a sad mercy.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – You said

1Way--in your last post--of this thread the the 78th, you are continuing to understand "all" in 2 Pet. 3:9 as meaning "all" without exclusion, "all" as if each and everyone of mankind is meant by it. (1) That is contradictory to Peter's meaning when he speaks of "us," the elect to whom he addresses his letter. ...
...

(2) The longsuffering is not a failed attempt to accomplish His will, but is salvation.

This view MUST be true because the whole of humanity is NEVER included in God's redemptive purpose.

(1) Rolf, I realize that you are trying to make a point in defense for your view, but you are not responding to my point which was demonstrated from scripture. Until you correct that understanding, then I’m sticking with God’s word of the matter as demonstrated.

(2) This is simple philosophy and does not conform with many scripture teaching salvation for the world.


In the future, if you wish to disagree with me, then that is fine, but don’t forget to deal with what you supposedly disagree with. What I said stands completely untouched by your treatment, because, you did not treat any of the reasons for my conclusion.

This is getting a bit problematic in terms of switching the focus of the discussion. I keep responding directly in a point counterpoint fashion to the questions and points offered, but in return, you have a habit of forgetting my points and counterpoints, and just move on to another issue. Please be more respectfully responsive.

For example, we had a whole issue about the proper translation of 2Pet 3.9 concerning “come to” or “make room”. I served to help you stand corrected on several issues, yet in response, instead of addressing them directly (with/earlier exceptions), you have avoided them instead.

Next, I answered what “towards us” means, and so you respond by dealing with what the word “all” means instead.

Please, one reasonable doable consistent understandable step at a time. Thanks.

 

[1Way]

3 words - context, context, context

3 words - context, context, context

Oh, Rolf - One more thing, do you believe in OSAS for this dispensation?

If so, then how does the Lords terrying somehow enhance our security? Should the Lord’s tarrying be added to the doctrine of eternal security? In what meaningful ways does the Lords "longsuffering" make our security any more secure? i.e. if He terries for 1 hour or 1 million years, OSAS is still as secure in either scenario, so this idea would make no difference concerning the saved if you grant OSAS is true.

The reference is about those who meaningfully should be saved and not already are saved.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1way--what point have you made supposedly substaniated by Scripture that I have not responded to? The point (2) which you
highlite in red is scriptural. See the 15th verse of chapter 3

 

[1Way]

Acts9_12Out – You said

I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage...

I use the OnLineBible (OLB) and it does it for me automatically just fine. I run a windows machine, but I would think the same should hold true for Mac. The only issue is that one or two letters from the online bible’s Greek font do not correspond to the Greek font used in symbol, so you might have to do an occasional edit here and there. It is a great freeware program. It is wonderful for searching, you can even search using Greek text, you can do proximity searches which find occurrences within a “passage” not just within a “verse”! It has phrase and word search and many Boolean search functions.

The OLB has great third party freeware add on modules. I own a $400-500 bible study program from Logos, “the original languages” package in the new improved series X version no less, and I rarely use it(!) except for the various electronic references that I don’t otherwise have, the OLB is that much more practical. It’s better at doing the kind of searches I usually do, and it’s easy for copy and paste functions. And it’s free, unless you want some copyrighted translations.

I’ve used the OLB program and several others since the 286/386 days, and I have done a lot of comparisons. It’s weak points are that it’s install routine is sort of clumsy although that has improved of late (it’s not a big learning curve), and the windowing options have been glitchy and sometimes a hassle to deal with, but that too has been almost completely fixed. You can get a CD for like 30 bucks and the NKJV is included in the price, a $5 royalty value, and it makes the install process a bit easier. It’s not a point and click and your done thing, but it is not hard to get yourself set up. If you do get it, I’d be more than happy to do phone in tech support and get you oriented.

You can download about everything you need from the internet

http://www.onlinebible.net/

and you can get a bunch of add on modules, including some on Bullenger and Scofield and Darby and many more at

http://www.ccel.org/olb/

But the NKJV costs $5 dollars to activate.

Happy trails!

 

[1Way]

Rolf – I’m still waiting for your response to my post 65 about the meaning of strongs 5561 “to come” or “make room”. I keep bringing it up, not so much because that point is so important, but because I’m observing that you may be developing a pattern of aversion that may become indicative and thus subversive to our discussion. When I answer you with a point counter point, and you don’t reply, you are halting the otherwise productive nature of our discussion.

Also, same issue with my correction of godrulz about Arminianism being linked to open theism via God’s foreknowledge and more importantly, God’s immutability. Although I am not sure that you read my correction to godrulz on that issue. Please read post 68 and 77. I would hope that you would stand corrected about all that. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian grant God is immutable in the classic sense, meaning no change. The Calvinist is much more consistent with that foundational precept, while the Arminian is very inconsistent. Only the open view denies the classical version of God’s immutability, so that is where the lines should be drawn, we are most certainly not Arminian, we are not a subset of Arminian, if anything, the Arminian’s hold to some of our conclusions, which is hardly the basis for saying we are Arminian. Both the Satanist and the Christian want “good” things in their life (keep their belongings, don’t get murdered, don’t get sick, don’t brake a leg, etc.), but such an agreement does not make them of the same mindset. Foundational issues matter, and arguably there is no deeper foundational matter than the immutability of God that makes Calvinism unique from all other Christian theologies. And Arminian theology accepts the same precept, but is way less consistent with it.

You said

(1) 1way--what point have you made supposedly substantiated by Scripture that I have not responded to? (2) The point (2) which you highlight in red is scriptural. See the 15th verse of chapter 3

(1) My post #78 was all about the meaning of the words “towards us”/”usward”. You chose to respond to Helmut84 in a theological/philosophical and tangent way, I choose to simply offer what God’s revealed word says it means.

(I like my approach way better than yours, yours is too subjective, and mine relies simply on scripture’s development for what “towards us” means.)

I just read the text that lead up to the use of the phrase/term, I included the fact that the author said that He wrote a two epistle wide thematically connected writing which further highlighted who the “toward us” are. Of special note was verse 2Pet 2.9 where those who Peter had in mind was called titles/names that are hallmarks for God’s special chosen people Israel/the Jews/the circumcision. Please re-read that post to know what I am talking about.

(2) Biblical and righteous are two very different things. It’s also biblical that man does not need a savior since he is not fallen “if you just stop reading the bible prior to the fall”. “My point is biblical” is not a sufficient claim unless you infer, and I grant you probably meant it this next way, unless you infer that it passes the scrutiny of the entire bible, or said more simply, it conforms to the whole bible.

This is at the heart of our debate/disagreement. Of course you think your view is biblically supported/derived and mine is wrong. I never said that you can not find any scripture that you think supports your view. I am saying that your view is wrong in that it does not conform to scripture with nearly the amount of agreement and bible wide fit that the open view happily enjoys. It’s an issue of objectivity and presuppositions and a man’s ability to “humbly” hold these loose enough to give God’s word a serious examination to see if these things are so or not (have a teachable spirit). The problem with many people in understanding/accepting the open view, is that of a paradigm shift. You have to not just change your mind about a key thing here or simply accept a new idea there, no, you ultimately have to jettison your old mindset about God and the bible, only then can you appropriately understand/accept the new paradigm.

The longsuffering of the Lord is salvation.
This is true, no doubt about it, and like God says, He wills/counsels that all make room for repentance. Salvation, especially getting saved, applies to the unsaved world just as much as it applies to us who were saved.

Like I asked before, do you believe in OSAS? If you do, then the patience of the Lord displayed as He terrys from making His second coming makes no difference in one’s eternal security. Your ideas sounds like the verse implies, so that the saved do not go to hell, God terries from His second coming. And that is nonsense, if we are secure, than nothing in heaven or earth could alter that security, it is anti-biblical to assume that God’s terrying may otherwise change what He says is eternally secure.

Here is the contextual development.
The false teaching was that nothing has changed, your God has either forgotten you or is not able to come back. The truth is that just as in the case of the flood, God has left large expanses of time in faithfulness to His word, He is supernatural, He has not forgotten us and the faithfulness of His word, He will return and the earth will not again experience a world wide flood. And remember that in God’s longsuffering toward us, in that He desires that none go to hell, we were also saved by His patient kindness, so remember the goodness and faithfulness of God and dismiss these false accusers for the foolishness that they are.

You can say that the longsuffering is about us because we were saved by God’s longsuffering, God could have stopped His terrying and returned a long time ago and wrap everything up and we would have never been born, let alone saved. So we should be thankful that the Lord has terried long enough to give us the chance to make room for salvation. Same with everyone else who should make room for salvation, they are no less important to God than we were prior to being saved.

 

[1Way]

While we are waiting for Rolf to respond, consider more teaching from scripture about man's ability to seek God and respond to the gospel message.



Paul is writing to us, about the unsaved pagans in the Areopagus, this is his apologetic attempt at witnessing and evangelism.

(Ac 17:22-32 NKJV)
“22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 (1) "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, (2) does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 (3) "Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 (4.a) "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 (4.b) "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 (5) "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 (6) "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, (7) but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. (8) He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."”

God through Paul argues that:

(1) God is the creator of the universe

(2) God does not dwell in manmade temples

(3) God is not worshiped by manmade things, God is the giver of life and all of creation

(4.a) God made all the nations from one Ancestry, He split up their language and can even respond against sinful Rome (and unbelieving Israel)* to accomplish His will by bringing redemption to the world, even to be as God’s minister for wrath for our good, to the extent that they make the evil doers afraid.

* = (because of all sin, not just the Jews and Rome, Jesus willingly laid down His own life for His own purposes)

(4.b) "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; !!!

(5) All of creation owes our very existence to God. And God is much like us, He is not like dead idols.

(6) God is just and merciful.

(7) “but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.”

God commands everyone everywhere to repent to escape the judgment to come.

(8) Paul backs it all up with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of our faith. So if you believe and trust in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the other points of Paul’s speech, then you must believe that unsaved man can and should seek and find God.


Notice that He says that God wants all men to repent, and also to seek the Lord, to grope for God though He is not far from each one of us. There should be no doubt that any and every man can and should seek after God, He is near all of us, and God commands everyone to repent, after all He created all men of all nations to seek and find Him.

 

[godrulz]

Open Theists are certainly different than Arminians. Calvinists and Arminians consider the OV heretical. OV and Arminians claim to believe in genuine freedom of the will, though it is logically hard to defend this from an Arminian perspective (since exhaustive foreknowledge is only possible if there are not alternative choices that could be made at the last second...i.e. difference between certainty/actuality and possibility). Calvinists emphasize predestination as the reason for knowledge. Arminians support libertarian freedom but emphasize simple foreknowledge without controlling decrees.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--OSAS is not in the Bible. I never heard of it, and the one semi-explanation you gave of it was, to me, very muddy. Could you simplify by just stating what OSAS is an acronym for?

Perhaps I sometimes fail to respond to certain points you want my view on because I often just respond to the gist of your posts. Your posts are so large that for me to respond to them point by point, my post in response would have to be humongous. You may have noticed that I don't like to put up large posts. Better a little that can be dealt with throroughly than an avalanche of verbosity which can only be handled by a massive post. It takes few words to voice an objection, but many to clarify or explain points.

If you want an answer on a point, don't throw that point in with multiple lenghty paragraphs, and do be specific. Rather than say, "you didn't answer my post!," simply say, "How then can you respond to--and then state book, chapter, verse."

In other instances, I believe that I have given answers which you have not recognized as answers because MANY times, you later come back with another post, the answer to which I had largely explained in a recent prior post which you didn't seem to take notice of or recognise as an answer.

Rather than complain generally about no responses, be specific in terms of book, chapter, and verse.

OSAS sounds like a Nazi military organisation and I have not read all of the Rise and fall of the third Reich. Explain what OSAS means in terms of the Scriptures you use to justify it, and how each of those verses teaches OSAS. Now I will for the next hour try to winnow your posts for something I need to respond to, but I will tend to bypass those points of yours I have made points against already.

 

[1Way]

foundational issues matter

foundational issues matter

godrulz - In other words, since the issue of immutability is the foundational difference that matters:

• Classic view/closed view
  = God does not change in any way
  = everyone except the open view
  
  Open view
  = God does change in significant ways
  = no one but the open view

Also many who are not well informed conveniently swap back and forth as the particular situation seems to afford. It is this notion of classic immutability that all the central and unique aspects of Calvinistic theology rests upon. If you have no classic immutability, then Calvinism along with it’s huge inconsistent following disintegrates, it does not fall, it does not brake down, it is gone.

 

[1Way]

right, like some of your posts are not large

right, like some of your posts are not large

Rolf – This is not my bible against your bible (understanding). This is about our personal differences of opinion between you and me. I was specific, take the translation issue of 2Pet 3.9 for example. You said it should be “come to”, I demonstrated how that is wrong according to the same translation you were supposedly defending, it should be “make room”. You have not responded. Such unresponsiveness, in the light of repeated attempts at getting you to respond may constitute a charge of evasiveness. I do not deal lightly with insincere posters, if you are willing to engage in mature respectable bible discussions, then become more responsive or just admit that you don’t have the time.

OSAS is an acronym for once saved always saved, I just did a simple right click search on this page and found that I just recently gave the acronym to Helmet84.

Do you believe in eternal security, once saved always saved? If so, then your idea does not fit the contextual development of 2Pet 3.9 as demonstrated.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--You wanted a response concerning choreo, Strong's # 5562. Here 'tis: Translated "to come". Your understanding of longsuffering as a space of time for His elect "to come" to repentance is completely valid. A space of time is necessary. There may be those who are elect who have not even yet been physically born. Their birth may yet be centuries ahead. However long it takes for all those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to appear on earth, hear the gospel and believe to the saving of their soul, for that long this old world will rock on. How do you disagree? That in no way disagrees with anything I have said. If you believe it does, just point out in what way.

 

[1Way]

Oh, the word means, bla bla bla bla bla bla, ,,,, what were we talking about?

Oh, the word means, bla bla bla bla bla bla, ,,,, what were we talking about?

Rolf – In post 86 at the top of the post, I said

Rolf – I’m still waiting for your response to my post 65 about the meaning of strongs 5561 “to come” or “make room”.

and then in post 91, although you probably did not see it yet, I said

I was specific, take the translation issue of 2Pet 3.9 for example. You said it should be “come to”, I demonstrated how that is wrong according to the same translation you were supposedly defending, it should be “make room”.

but, instead of dealing with the contention we were having as just mentioned, you say

1Way--You wanted a response concerning choreo, Strong's # 5562. Here 'tis: Translated "to come". Your understanding of longsuffering as a space of time for His elect "to come" to repentance is completely valid.

Lie, I did not ask for A RESPONSE CONCERNING CHOREO, I specifically and repeated asked for you to address the proper translation of that word in 2Pet 3.9 in light of my arguments that it should be rendered “to make room”, and you know this to be true because prior to my last post to you about that, you had been at least somewhat responsive.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – Here is my last post to you on this issue. Post 65, the one I specifically directed your attention to.

Rolf – I don’t know greek, I’ve never studied it. I know how to reference “reference works” and compare contextual use pretty well. I am in no way presenting to you my scholarship or my translation, because I do not know how to read Greek. I am using your translation to demonstrate it’s own inconsistency an inaccuracy.

This all be done using the KJV with the rendering of 2Pet 3.9, “come to”.

Here is the text in question
2Pet 3.9

2Pe 3:9
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.

I did a search for all occurrences of the same word for “come to”. John 21.25 was the only other occurrence, although as Jeremy points out, the same word in different forms have other occurrences.

Here is John 21.25

Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

***Note*** A small section right here is removed from this post by simply granting that the word in question means just “could contain”, and not, “could not contain”. See post 65 for more info.


So here are those two verses again this time side by side, with the word in question highlighted in blue.

2Pe 3:9 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.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Now, so far, all I have shown you is that I can look up the same Greek word and compare two verses using the same word with the same voice tense mood according to my bible study program (the OnLineBible). The verses are all using the KJV, the Gree from the TR for searching and display only.

Now, this is my observation, it is not an argument I am making up. To examine the translation’s consistency, we can just look at the renderings to see how they come across. They are

“should come”
“could contain”

on the surface, they are both permitting ideas showing some ability of action.

Now, lets swap the rendering in the verses to see how the context fleshes things out. This is where the differences between these two renderings become more evident.


***Note*** A second small section right here is removed from this post by simply granting that the word in question means just “could contain”, and not, “could not contain”. See post 65 for more info.

2Pe 3:9 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 could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I do not suppose that even the world itself should come to the books that should be written. Amen.

Findings
In 2Pe 3.9 the general idea of “could contain” is roughly “have room for” or “make room for” etc. so this idea seems to fit pretty good with the sense in which it is used.

But, when you look at John 12.25, it does not fit very well. Consider this rendering in terms of action. “Come to” is the idea of “approaching” or “arriving at”. But the idea being graphically displayed in John 21.25 is not so much “approaching” or “arriving”, it’s about “having enough room”, the whole world may not have enough room for all the books ... so it’s a word about “having” or “making room” or as the text was rendered “containing”, “could contain”.

Assessment
This swapping of renderings would make 2Pet 3.9 into a reasonable verse, but John 21.25 is problematic at best, because what in the world would it matter if the world could or could not approach these books? John is not talking about the issue of world wide access to these books, but rather the idea is all about the enormity of such books and that the world could not “have enough room for” them, it “could not contain” them.

Also, I grant that the contextual use of a word does not determine the words meaning per say, but it can give good indicator’s of it’s appropriate use, and by comparing alternate renderings it can become easier to see what aspects of the rendering fits and what does not. So what I just did does not exactly limit the scope of the meaning of this word, but it does serve to demonstrate the inconsistency of the translation and that it’s contextual use is not I agreement with the dubious rending in 2Pet 3.9. The rendering in John 12.25 fits both verses just fine so that rendering passes the test, but the rendering in 2Pet 3.9 does not fit John 12.25 very well. Such observation indicates a dubious rendering since it is a very poor fit/bad in John 12.25.

In conclusion
Thus, based upon the translator’s treatment of this same word, it is reasonable to assume that “make room” is better than “should come”, it certainly fits into each context much more clearly, while “come to” hardly fit’s John 12.25 at all.

Again this is going strictly by their own translation work, I am simply observing the noticeable inconsistency with what they submitted was the correct renderings, and how the Pet rendering does not compare well while the John rendering does just fine. So please don’t misunderstand what has been presented for your consideration. This is not mocking the translators per say. This is demonstrating their own inconstancy and how these two examples serve to invalidate “come to” and validate “could contain”, “make room for”, “to make room for”.

I know it can be hard to keep track of things, but what you just did was uncalled for.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--choreo is variously translated "be room to receive; can contain; can receive; come; contain; go; have place; receive" of these translations, each is made one time.
BUT in 2Pet 3:9 it is not a bare choreo. The word there is
choresai, and that is the place where it is translated to come; but that does not necessarily militate against your understanding of the text, for the real meaning of His longsuffering is that He is giving room, a space in time for them to come to repentance. Either way, I do not see how this alters our discussion. It fits in with both. It is just a matter of where you want an emphasis to be placed. The end result is the same. Isn't that true? Primarily the issue between our doctrinal differences is not that point at all. The issue is, did God intend by His longsuffering that none of humanity should perish ?
Did He intend by His longsuffering for "all" in the sense of each and everyone of humanity to repent, or did He intend by His longsuffering
that none of an elect number should perish; that "all" of that number xshould colme to repentance. One way, His longsuffering is self-defeating. The other way, the purpose of His longsuffering is realized.

 

[1Way]

old habits are hard to brake, ,,, let's see, what were we takling about ... ?

old habits are hard to brake, ,,, let's see, what were we takling about ... ?

Rolf – With all due respect, you have not remotely addressed what I offered you by way of argument/support reasoning. I gave an argument for why it should not be “come to”, but rather it should be “make room for”, yet when I read your response, I notice that you never once addressed my argument, not once.

So forgive me if I continue to wait for cogent pointed arguments from you.

One last comment, so what about eternal security, do you believe in OSAS? Yes or no?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--in a post above, you asked me to respond about #5561.
Well, #5561 is NOT in 2Pet 3:9. It is not there. The word in 2Pet. 3:9 is Strong's # 5562. Therefore, figuring you had made a typo, I took the liberty to speak concerning the only word of the two which is in 2Pet. 3:9. Chora has no part in 2 pet. 3:9, and I am not willing to add it in to the text.
I am looking at the Greek text of the Textus Receptus (TR). The word there is choresai and every translation I have seen translates it "to come." When I say every translation, I mean all the way from the KJV to the NRSV.

After looking at chora (#5561) I can see the point you were trying to make. The text you are reading from (is it a computerized text?) must be smeared or blurry. I remember looking at one of your posts and had trouble identifying some letters because of the quality of the lettering. Then I went to my TR greek text.

CHORE is different from CHORA. CHORA does, I agree, make the point you were making. Only one difficulty, mate: she ain't there. Why not junk that Greek (?) software and get a copy of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament edited by Jay Green, Sr. The Greek text is the TR. On the far right column is the KJV translation, and on the left is Green's literal translation. Best of all, 1Way, the Greek text is large, easily read, and is meticulously flawless. It could even prevent some stress in a long distance discussion of Scripture. This TR interlinear is a good buy and a valuable study tool for any Christian.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--Once save always saved ? Yes, in a sense I believe that, but I prefer to call it, if we want acronyms, POTS--Perseverance of the saints.
You see, OSAS has a flavor of, "It don't matter what--come drought or high water, living like a reprobate,cursing like and living like an AWOL sailor, buddy--you still awright." That is the flavor which OSAS has, and THAT OSAS is not true. But POTS IS true. POTS means Perseverance in the faith and holiness in accord with a real progressive sanctification. POTS is true. But OSAS no matter WHAT ain't true. "OSAS no matter what" really means, never saved in the first place.

But what has that got to do with 2 Pet. 3:9? In what way does the text of 2 Pet 3:9 rule out the possibility of POTS?? It does not touch on it.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – Thank you for the correction on the typo. You still are not dealing with my argument in the least. I am using your own argument against you. I am granting the translation’s use in order to show it’s inconsistency and contextual invalidity. If you have no counterpoints to make against my points, then I understand because evidently, although I have been repeatedly asking for your direct counterpoint response, you have presented no countering points against my points that serve very nicely to counter or dare I say refute your view as stated.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

very nice post count 1Way! 1111. :up: