When brothers begin to search the Scriptures, especially as new believers, we tend to come across those "ah-HA!" ones that validate one set of theological thought over and against another.  When the fires of newfound faith were stoked within me in my early Christian walk, I was more than delighted to oppose my pastor (and friend, Dennis Rupert) with verses such as those found below.  You see, when I first became a Christian, I held to what some call "Arminian" soteriology -- though I prefer the term "synergistic" soteriology, as it disassociates from a particular person -- and I now hold to a monergistic soteriology ("Calvinism", if you really must).

Soteriology is a fancy way of saying, "the study of salvation" (particularly through Jesus the Christ).  If you haven't faced this argument before, please note that "argument" is a philosophical term for a discussion with two opposing sides.  Still, many become heated (I used to) when engaging this issue which tells me now that those heated up ones (as I once was) are really arguing their point and not the defense of the Scriptures.  I will disengage someone now, if I sense this going in a bad direction (in that sense).

I am overjoyed to have a brother who is genuinely seeking out the answers as to how salvation works, and he has come to me with these verses.  I wish to share for the general edification of the church here in this blog.  If you disagree with what I say, please feel free to comment, but know that dissenters and flamers will be ignored.  The Word itself (Himself) is divisive enough, the church need not tear herself apart over these things...

Now, on with the verses:

2 Peter 3:9 (ESV) - "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."

*or, "...but is patient on your account..." (as in some manuscripts)

This verse can even be taken out of context and still be understood very easily with a step-by-step walk thru it.  Notice the object of the patience (you, plural), which is also the object of God's "wishing that any should perish" or "desiring" the same.  That continues to follow through the entirety of the verse clear into "that all should reach repentance".  This letter, like some other of Paul's epistles, has a direct audience (even though many of them were read and circulated generally).  In this case, it's "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours" (1:1), and the multiple "you" statements keep that running.  When referring to others, including false teachers, scoffers, etc., a "they" is included as the pronoun reference.

Any other reading of this verse creates problems or leads to Universalism (all are saved), with one exception:  if one were to exclude the above reading as the reading, and ignore the context of the verse itself you could make a case for God's general benevolence towards His creation -- that God does not take delight in the destruction of the wicked.  This in no way compromises the rest of Scripture, but it doesn't jive well with the rest of the epistle's language or context, so this reading, though "generally acceptable", isn't the best one (it somewhat violates standard English grammatical principles, without even getting into the Greek).

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (ESV) - "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Here again, we have to ask, "are all people saved?", which clearly the answer is "no".  Does God desire something that He has no power to bring about, or "can't" for some reason?  This requires an understanding of "what does it mean for God to 'desire' something?"  For obvious reasons, it cannot mean the same thing as me desiring a chocolate bar or loads of money (I don't even like chocolate that much), since those are things I cannot give myself easily (okay, maybe the chocolate).  When we desire something, it usually comes out of a lack of that thing.  I "desire" money because I don't have any.  I "desire" food because I'm hungry.  It defines a deficiency (of sorts) for us.  God, having no deficiencies, cannot have desires in the same way and same sense as we do.

One reading, I mentioned earlier, is the "all [kinds] of people", which isn't a marring of the text at all.  In verse 1 note that Paul is asking us to prayer inclusively, not exclusively, for different types of folks -- he even provides a couple of examples of the types of persons we should be praying for ("kings and all who are in high positions").  However, even that can be read as it comes in literal,  direct English ("all people") and still not scuff God's divine election (nor support synergistic theology) by going back to the comment I made earlier in 2 Peter regarding God's general benevolence and His not delighting in the destruction of the wicked.  That is much more fitting of the text than reading God's purported intentions in saving all people (which, again, we know isn't the case).

1 John 2:1-4 (ESV) - "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.  By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked."

Interestingly, the entire book of 1 John has its purpose in explaining who is and is not a brother in Christ (read: "saved").  This may be why I've never come across this epistle as having defended a synergistic view of salvation.  You'll note in the context that immediately after the "whole world" statement, John dips into explaining that only those who "keep his commandments" are abiding in the Truth (Jesus).  Here again, John's epistle (like Peter's above) is written to a specific group of brothers, and John is noting simply that Jesus died as the payment for their debt, and not just John's and those to whom he addresses this letter, but to all the saved brethren the world over (and perhaps to come).  Even denying this reading, it's noted by Reformed theologians that the power of Christ's death & resurrection is enough to have redeemed everyone, but the application of the propitiation is limited (otherwise, again, we dip into Universalism).  This is a definition of the doctrine of "Limited Atonement".

Some use this to say that Jesus died as the propitiation, having redeemed us from our sins and now it's "up to us", meaning we now have to "choose" Jesus.  The problem with this idea is that propitiation & redemption are specific terms with exclusive connotations.  When you redeem someone, they belong to you.  It's a slave trade term, and it resonates throughout Scripture.  Paul picks this up when he calls us either a "slave to sin" or a "slave to righteousness" (Romans 6:15-23).  Propitiation is just a big word meaning to "make amends" for a wrongdoing and is used, again, in the sense of paying the debt for a slave.  Remember that some of the slaves were made slaves because they had debts they could not pay.  This is true of sinners, and is often the metaphor used for our immeasurable debt to God for our disobedience, a debt we have no chance of paying on our own - we could all die and still not pay the debt!  As slaves in need of redemption (being bought from slavery to our sin), someone had to pay.  "For the wages of sin is death", which means someone had to die.  We could not appease God on our own, and only God could satisfy His holy justice -- so He gave us His son to be that propitiation (becoming the payment, thereby buying us from sin and into righteousness).  The decision is made when the propitiation is made, not when we say so.  A slave cannot enter into the discussion as if offering something more to the talks of payment!  We're slaves because we couldn't make the payment, so there's nothing more to occur than the exchange between the Mediator (or Arbiter) and the Judge.

Well, hopefully that was helpful for you -- it was certainly a blessed exercise for me!  I love-love-love the Scriptures, and thoroughly enjoy an opportunity to study and be challenged by them.  Please let me know if I ever sound belittling or disrespectful of other views; it's tough not to because I spent so long holding to them desperately (my first 3 years as a Christian).  Still, I desire correction in that sense, where appropriate.

Note that I described myself as a Christian despite holding to a wrong view of salvation in Scripture (as I see it today).  Nothing about my salvation has changed, but I've grown in understanding and clarity when it comes to Scripture (as we all do when frequently exposed to it), by God's grace alone;  brothers can disagree completely in love (Christ) as to the workings of salvation, and still remain beholden to the mercies and grace of our Lord (granted, there are some heresies out there that I'm sure we'll address later).

I didn't get to John 3:16 (a favorite in this discussion) this time through, as that one will likely take up an entire entry alone.  Though, if you apply the same logic to the text as above, you will see that this passage is no different.  Until next time!!