Let me preface this post by pointing out that my intention with this pair of posts is not to convince anyone.  Rather, my intent is to explain how/why, as a Reformed believer, I find my beliefs to be in line with the Scriptures.  I am told by 0thers who are not from a Reformed background that they cannot get their Reformed friends to “debate” with them from a Scriptural basis, so I want to clear up my (family’s) position.

As any other Reformed Christian, I believe the answer to this is, “no.”  I do take the Bible literally.  So how, you ask, can I believe that God does not intend for every person in the world to be saved, in light of 2 Peter 3:9?

There are certain rules of good hermeneutics (proper interpretation of the text).  Context is a biggie – Scripture must be understood in light of Scripture.  One specific way this comes into play is that obscure passages are to be interpreted in light of clear passages.  Perhaps obviously, passages must also be understood in their immediate context.

Having laid that foundation, let’s go back to the original point of departure. 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 are the only verses of which I’m aware which seem, at first glance, to teach that God wills that everyone be saved.  They do not immediately appear to be obscure – they appear straightforward – and I do not take these verses lightly.  The problem is, if we take them at face value, and we take other verses/passages at face value, they contradict each other.  We know that God does not contradict Himself, so we have to look a little deeper.  Where do we start?

The weight of “evidence” falls in favor of a Reformed perspective.  As I already noted, these are the only two verses/passages I’m aware of which appear to contradict this perspective.  On the other hand,

• Reformed theology is woven throughout the Scriptures, from beginning to end.
• Reformed theology is supported by Old Testament examples.*
• Reformed theology is supported by New Testament imagery for salvation.
• Reformed theology is supported by the terminology used by several different New Testament writers.
• Reformed theology is (perhaps most importantly for our purposes) supported by a somewhat lengthy, very clear passage of Scripture directed to this specific subject.  Because this entire passage is written specifically to illuminate this subject, all other references made “in passing” should be understood in light of this clear teaching passage.

Given this long list (which would be immensely longer if I spelled out every example/verse/passage in each of the above items), it would seem more likely that it is the two verses seeming to oppose Reformed theology which need closer scrutiny, rather than the plethora which support it.

How else might these passages be understood, then, since they seem to be so obvious?  While I will not claim to be the absolutely authority here (God forbid!), I can offer a reasonable answer for each, which makes sense in light of the context.  I will, however, leave that for another post.

*Some readers will no doubt claim that Old Testament support for this theology – or any theology, for that matter – is irrelevant, because God was somehow different in the Old Testament.  That is dangerous ground, theologically, and Scripture itself refutes this view.  First, we are told that our Lord is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”  He is unchangeable.  Thus the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are one. 

Second, the New Testament writers did not hold this view.  They quoted from it, exposited parts of it for us, and told us that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.”  (Remember that there was not yet a New Testament when this was penned!)

Continue to part 2…