Home > Calvinism, Calvinist, Election > God’s Desire for Everyone’s Salvation Makes Him Schizophrenic?

God’s Desire for Everyone’s Salvation Makes Him Schizophrenic?

January 12, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

Now, there’s a question I’ve never have thought to ask.  However, in this video (here) Pastor Mark Kielar put the question as, “Does 2 Pet 3:9 make God schizophrenic?”  This verse in the NIV reads:

  • The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness.  He is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Mr. Kielar indicates a conflict using 2 Pet3:9 as a proof text that God desires everyone to be saved because:

  1. The verse seems to indicate that God doesn’t want anyone to perish and for all to come to repentance.
  2. However, it’s clear that God doesn’t save everyone.

According to Mr. Kielar, then, there’s disconnect with the above statements that is easily rectified with Isaiah 46:10 which says:

  • I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.  I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

Mr. Kielar explains that in order for everyone to accept salvation, we’d all have to become universalists (the belief that all will eventually be saved) or else scripture is contradicting itself.  Mr. Kielar provides an overview of the doctrine of election where  God choose to save some, but not everyone.  Unconditional election, then, removes the possible misinterpretation of 2 Pet 3:9. 

Those who follow this blog already know that I’m thinking, “Ah, not so fast, please.”  My first question – what is Isaiah 46 all about?  My NIV Topical Bible titles the 46th chapter of Isaiah as “God’s of Babylon”.  My $0.02 overview of the chapter is:

(1-2) Idols and idolaters are heading into captivity

(3-4) God has upheld and will rescue the Babylonians

(5-7) No one (and nothing) is equal to God.

(8-13) God’s purposes will stand.  His salvation is to Zion and his splendor to Israel

The bottom line, then, is that God is sovereign.  I understand, I believe, and accept that.  However, I’m not seeing any disconnect or contradictions between 2 Pet 3:9 and Isaiah 46:10 if for no other reason than neither of these verses appear to say anything about election.  2 Pet 3:9 states rather succinctly that God wishes for no one to perish.  If my high school English grammar is correct, that sounds like a declarative statement in which there’s not a lot of room for ambiguity.  If anyone does perish, then it’s apparent that one’s eternal separation from God was not God’s desire or intent – and that ties in with God’s sovereignty per Isaiah 46:10 in which God, being sovereign, will allow that person to be eternally separated.  Some may say that my interpretation doesn’t coincide with election.  Well, perhaps the doctrine of election doesn’t follow from these verses. 

Just out of curiosity, what would John Calvin say about Isaiah 46:10?  A quick Google search led me (here):

  • The people were not only slow to believe, but even obstinate; and therefore he reminds them that they had learned long ago, and not on one occasion only, how safe it is to place their confidence in God.  Nor is it only his foreknowledge that is here extolled by him, but he says that he has testified by his prophets what he had decreed.  Even the prophecies would have no certainty or solidity, if the same God who declares that this or that thing shall happen had not the events themselves in his power.”

Calvin’s main point – God is sovereign.  I (and certainly my Calvinist friends) would have found it fascinating if Calvin had made a reference back to 2 Pet 3:9 and commented about the doctrine of unconditional election.  If nothing else, Calvin doesn’t use these verses to support the doctrine of election – at least not here.

So, what am I to conclude?  Mr. Kielar’s point that 2 Pet 3:9 supports or otherwise construes universalist belief doesn’t make sense to me.  I see no basis for that argument.  God is sovereign.  But does God’s sovereignty automatically mean that he has elected only some individuals for salvation?  I personally don’t think so.  Perhaps I’m missing something – but I see no inconsistency in the belief that God is sovereign and will do as he pleases (Isaiah 46:10) and God wanting none to perish (2 Pet 3:9).  Put together, these verses seem to provide a basis for God giving individuals free-will if for no other reason than many (most?) people reject Christianity and God appears willing to allow that to happen.  Given that there’s no apparent contradiction within 2 Pet 3:9, will someone please inform Pastor Kielar that there’s no schizophrenia within God as pertaining to 2 Pet 3:9.

  1. January 13, 2010 at 9:31 am

    “However, it’s clear that God doesn’t save everyone.”

    How’s that clear?

  2. January 13, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Hey Bob, as mentioned before I have been struggling with many of the same issues. If you have 30 minutes or so you may wish to read this defense of Molinism that manages to explain how God can be sovereign over all and still allow for free choices amongst his creatures.

    Click to access Molinism-%20How%20to%20be%20a%20consistent%20infralapsarian.pdf

    • Bob
      January 13, 2010 at 10:32 am

      Thanks for the link, Bruce. When I get a chance I will review it. But first I have to find the definition for the word ‘infralapsarian’ – it’s not in my Webster’s.

      Show-off! ;-DD

      • Bob
        January 13, 2010 at 10:38 am

        FYI – this comes from Wikipedia:

        Lapsarianism is the set of Calvinist doctrines describing the theoretical order of God’s decree (in his mind, before Creation), in particular concerning the order of his decree for the fall of man and reprobation. The name of the doctrine comes from the Latin lapsus meaning fall.

  3. January 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Correct, and infra would mean after the fall and supra would mean before the fall.

  4. Bob
    January 14, 2010 at 12:17 pm


    I just read through the Molinism paper you referenced above. I must admit that I have not before now come across the term. The paper is a bit on the “technical” side but once definitions (i.e. ‘infra’ & ‘supra’ ‘infralapsarian’ are understood, it is quite readable. I’m impressed. As I was reading the paper, I wasn’t continually struck with “Ah, now hold on a second” thoughts that I sometimes encounter with Calvinist exposition. The author appears to have nicely put together a middle perspective in the Calvinist-Arminian debate and I think the last sentence nicely sums up the presentation: “If one is going to do justice to the doctrine of God, he must affirm both God’sovereignty and his permission. Molinism presents a forceful affirmation of both.”

    I’ve got some other “irons in the fire” but may want to post on this later. Thanks, again. // Bob

  5. Julia
    February 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    God has already saved everyone through Jesus Christ. When God created us he gave us free will to make our own decisions. You have to come to God to accept that salvation. He does want everyone to be saved which is why is being patient so that as many as possible can be saved but he knows that is up to us. No parent wants to see their child take the wrong path but sometimes they do. There are life boats all around this sinking ship but it is up to you to hop on.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: