That is what I was asking for from Jerwood, but never got. Well stated.

Yes, but in different ways.

the Greek term “proginosko” is an active verb. It’s something that God “does” to “us” as the direct object. It’s a personal term.
It says that God foreknew us, but let’s be careful to not ascribe more meaning to that term than is there…it says nothing about God “seeing what we’d do” and reacting to it. It merely says that He foreknew us.

It’s only used one other time and there it says that God “foreknew” Jesus. That doesn’t mean that God “looked down the corridors of time to see what Jesus would do”….and then reacted to it.

I’d like to start with the assumption that the scriptures are inerrant. The do not contradict. There are “paradoxes” but remember that the definition of paradox is a “perceived” contradiction that is able to be reconciled.

The issue is that there are plenty of verses that plainly say that our salvation is God’s choice. and that God saves some while allowing others to go to hell.

So what do we do with 2 Peter 3:9? That’s a paradox. But, it’s able to be reconciled easily enough.
Let’s begin with the text which says:
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.

Since context is everything in reading a passage…let’s ask…who is this letter written to?
The answer is in 2 Peter 3:1 “beloved.”

So who are the beloved? The answer is also found in the first verse:
“This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.”

So this is the “second letter”…let’s go to the first letter that Peter wrote to see just who these beloved are…
Here is the text of 1st Peter 1:1:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 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:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

So now we know who Peter is addressing; the elect of God. That puts the comments of 2 Peter 3:9 in their proper context:
Peter is reassuring the “elect of God” that God isn’t slow about his promise to them but is patient, not wanting any (of the group that he’s addressing) to perish, but all (of that group; the elect) to come to repentance.

Context is everything. There are no exegetical or syntactical grounds to assume that Peter shifts the meaning of “tis” to mean “everyone who ever lived or who will ever live” for this verse. Only a persons presupposition about God wanting to save everyone does that.

In addition to the context the issue of “tis” and it’s range of meanings also plays into it. The word “some” as in “some count slowness” and “any” as in “any” should perish; is the same word in the Greek, “tis” and one of it’s meanings is “certain ones.”
So the verse could just as easily be translated “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as certain ones count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that certain ones should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

As if that’s not enough; the word “all” is Strongs #3956 “pas” and is commonly translated “some of all types.” That fits in nicely with our exegesis of the text.

Strongs lexicon even makes a point of saying that “all” rarely means “all individually without exception” to make sure that we don’t make that exact mistake of reading into the word “all” “everyone who ever lived without exception.”

You may not agree with this, but that’s what the text says in context. There really is no reason to believe, based on 2 Peter 3:9 that God is not sovereign and that He will not save whom He chooses.

Amen. Doesn’t sound like we really disagree. It sounds like we both admit we are not able to fully comprehend God.

I told you that I do not understand God’s sovereignty and how he remains sovereign and still gives man a free will. The comment you have made about the “automan” is the six million dollar question. But as I stated, it is something we do not need to know and must accept with an unclear understanding of God’s sovereignty. If you insist on knowing the answer to that issue before you can believe that God has mapped out everything man does (Prov. 16:33) ahead of time and man still operates under a free will, I guess you will have to ignore 2 Peter 3:9 and the like as paradoxes. One of my points was that because we are not God there are things we cannot know, things that are to wonderful for us to understand. Furthermore, God has told us that we are incorrect in thinking that we are altogether like Him, so we best not mess with thing that we are not entitled to know. I do not understand why I have to repeat myself, but somehow I don’t think I am getting through.

Also, please be more specific when you say that God works through human efforts, that is a totally openended statement, obvious to everyone. So, what is your point? If you are trying to tell me that God needs us to accomplish His tasks, I beg to differ with you. As you well know God does not need chariots and horses, and we were not there to help when he created the universe, so what is puny little man going to accomplish that God has not already preordained?

If you are saying that God accomplishes HIs will through man, I agree. His will is accomplished in that He is glorified in all that He does, whether it is in His loving and protecting his Church (men) or destroying the wicked (men), He is glorified and his will is accomplished. However, we cannot change that preordained plan (Eph. 1:9&11), because God’s will is perfect.

Next, foreknowledge precedes predestination and is not opposed to it – those He foreknew (foreloved) He predestined . . .(Rom. 8:29), so either you did a boo boo, or you misunderstand these terms.

Whether or not you exhibit a proclivity toward free will, I don’t know, perhaps we will discuss that another day. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, so long as you can agree that man has nothing to do with his own salvation, and therefore ascribe to the fact that we are save by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone – the flesh profiteth nothing.

1. God is sovereign and His plans cannot be thwarted by man; or,

2. God works through human efforts.

Both principles are plainly supported by Scripture, and you apparently agree with the first. Why is it ridiculous to suggest the possibility that David could have chosen another course? What is your Scriptural basis for that proposition? Was he an automaton? How could he be “commended for his faith” (Heb. 11:39) if he had acted in the only way possible?

I’m also not sure why you believe I’ve chose to “embrace man’s free will.” I don’t think the issue of fore-knowledge vs. predestination is as simple and clearcut as you apparently believe it to be. I recognize that my human mind is capable of error, despite my best efforts. I am not troubled by that. I am satisfied to study God’s Word and earnestly seek Him.

I’ll cut to the chase. I am saying that, while I do not understand how God can be Sovereign and still allow men to have a free will, I do not see in scripture that I am required to so understand. What Scripture tells me to do is believe it is the Word of God. That is why I believe that man does not choose God but that God chooses man. I back up my position scripturally: “you did not choose me, I chose you”. . . . “no one comes to me unless the Father draw him”. . . . “you do not believe in me because you are not My sheep (not, you are not my sheep because you do not beieve me)” . . . . “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.” . . .”He chose us before the creation of the world . . . . and finally, but by no means the last, “but as many as received him, to them he gave the right to Become children of God, to thoe who believe in His name: who were BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”

My point? I believe what I am required by scripture to believe, call me glib. I am not required to believe that man freely chooses God, in fact, the aforementioned scripture references are contrary to such thinking. Unlike you I do not see contradictions and paradoxes in scripture. when i say God is sovereign, I mean it completely, without giving any credit to man. Man does what he does because God preordained it and because He is Sovereign. It is rediculous to suggest the possibility of David having choseng another course. Do I understand fully how God directs everything man does, or that no sparrow fall to the ground apart from Him? No. But that is something scripture does not reveal, so it is ok. What is not ok is disbelieveing clear scriptural dictates, because they do not jive with our preconceived notions of reality. And that is what I believe you are doing through what I understand you to be saying. However, I would be happy to be proven wrong about this.

Instead of believeing scripture over presupposition, you have apparentlly done the reverse, chalking your inability to face the truth of scripture up to a vast theological issue. Choosing instead to embrace man’s free will, whch you cannot support with scripture, over clear scripture on the issue of salvation, makes no sense to me. I’m sure we would both agree that man’s heart is deceitfully wicked, so why trust it.

Am i a fooling myself because I believe what scripture says? I’ll take that risk base on my solid faith in Jesus Christ and His gospel.

By the way I am not insistent that Anthony apologize. I think that being a pastor, he needs to be responsible for what he says. He may have issued a partial retraction, but he offered no substantive scriptural to deal with the issue, on point. Anthony can do whatever he wants to do. I suspect he will not do anything further than what he has done. But, again I think he has a responsibility, especially to his congregation, as a representative of God, to state his position precisely; and I do not see how he can do that without clear reference to the gospel which he claims to be preaching, and which God will hold him accountable for properly handling. Am I being unreasonable?