Is God Willing that Any Should Perish?

 

The 15^th in the series of 16 video clips from RC Sproul that I have been commenting on in my blog, seen above, is titled, “Is God willing that any should perish?” The reference is to the following verse in Peter’s second epistle:

2 Peter 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.

Which questions and undermines the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election—although he spends more time defending against 2 Peter 2:1, which by his own admission presents an even bigger challenge. The transcript begins as follows:

“Yes, Peter and his second epistle, he not only makes that problematic statement about God is not willing that any should perish; but in the second chapter, he goes on about those false teachers and false prophets who in their destructive and wicked behavior, even go so far as to not to deny the Lord who “bought them;” and this becomes a very frequently used Arminian verse to suggest that Christ has purchased redemption for even these godless people who are on their way to destruction.”

The first thing to point out here is that that is not an “Arminian” verse! Jacobus Arminius did not invent that verse. The Apostle Peter did! Then he continues as follows:

“And I have to say to be perfectly honest with you, this is a difficult text for a Reformed person to deal with, because on the surface it does seem to suggest that Christ bought the redemption even of those who perish, and that would suggest an Atonement that goes beyond the saving of the elect. Now there are some very important ambiguities in this text. This is treated in great detail by the way in John Owen’s Death of Death. The first question is, Is the text really referring to Jesus? Now it may be, but there is this little quirk in the text where the term Lord here is not the normal kurios [κύριος], but it is a different Greek word, and it is the word that is used frequently for God the Father, but almost never, and in fact by according to some commentators, never is used for for Jesus.

“And so it is not the speaking of being bought by Jesus, which is the language we use for the Atonement; but rather would refer to some benefit that God purchases or provides for people—like you have in the Old Testament, God brings everybody out of Egypt, and they all experience the benefits of the Exodus, but not all of those who are brought out of Egypt are numbered among the elect; and it could be that these false teachers have enjoyed the benefit of the light of the gospel, but they are denying the very source of those benefits—not that they have been brought into a state of salvation.

“John Owen would argue that this not only does not refer to Jesus, it does not refer to his act of purchasing Redemption for the elect on the cross; that that which is bought falls short of the purchase of redemption; because nothing here about the blood of Christ, nothing here about the Atonement, nothing here about the purchase of redemption. Those are things that we add into the text, that the text does not actually say.

“Another possibility is following the typical type of arguments that we find in the New Testament, particularly with the Judaizers who may be in view here, that they are saying that if you teach this false doctrine, and really believe what you are saying, in the final analysis you are denying everything about Christ, and that would indicate that it is not that these were were elect people who fell away from their salvation; and if they had been saved, if they had had their souls purchased by Christ, then their ultimate end would not be destruction. And if we read the rest of the second chapter, you see that these are really godless people, immoral from beginning to end, who are denying everything there is to deny about the character of God, the nature of God’s redemption of the Jewish people; and it could be again with a relationship to the way in which God has purchased Israel in the Old Testament, bringing them out, and now these false teachers are denying that. They are denying the the benefit of their Jewishness that they had. So I don’t think that the text actually necessarily teaches that these godless people were purchased by Christ on the cross. In this text the word Lord that is translated by the English word Lord is the Greek word despots, we get the word despot from it; but again, that word is next to never used with respect to Jesus.”

That is a very convoluted way of getting round two very obvious verses contradicting the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. The problem with that is that 2 Peter 2:1 is not the only scripture that suggest the possibility that someone for whom Christ died, whose sins were atoned for, might not be saved. Here are two more:

Romans 14:

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

1 Corinthians 8:

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Ezekiel 3:16–21; 33:1–9, referenced in the previous post, further confirm the above. And there are even more verses that harmonize with, and support 2 Peter 3:9, meaning that Jesus died and atoned for the sins of all men without exception, not just some men, or just the “elect”—contrary to the teaching of Calvinism. Here are the references:

John 1:

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 3:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 5:

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

2 Corinthians 5:

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

1 Timothy 2:

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 2:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 John 2:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Ezekiel 18:1–29; 33:10–20 likewise further confirm the above. All of these verses suggest that God wants “all men” to be saved; and therefore has atoned for the sins of all men, and thus made it possible for all men to be saved; and the choice is theirs whether to believe and repent and be saved; or else to refuse and rebel, and harden their hearts, so as not to be.

That is the true biblical doctrine—which contradicts Calvinism 100%, and discredits it completely. Taken together, these verses destroy Calvinism on a grand scale, from foundation up, with nothing of it remaining.