We can hear a lot of teaching these days from a lot of churches about the dream destiny God has for each of us. It’s a popular topic these days. What about it? Does God have a ‘Dream Destiny’ for you?

Christ Roseborough give us his opinion based on the account of Moses found in the book of Exodus. You can listen here, or at:

http://www.piratechristian.com/fightingforthefaith/2016/12/god-does-not-have-a-dream-destiny-to-reveal-to-you

Without doubt, 2 Peter 3:9 is the single most popular verse used to dismiss the reformed doctrine of election, bar none. Usually the meaning of the verse is assumed without taking any time to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. In fact, traditions are so strong that many do not even see the need to study the verse because they believe there is no need to do so. I have to admit that I did this for many years. Those most enslaved to their traditions are those who believe they do not have any. First of all then, let us read the verse in its context.

2 Peter 3:1-9 – This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 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.

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s “second coming” He is still coming, and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night (v. 10).

The second thing to notice is the clear identity of the people he is addressing. He speaks of the mockers as “they” but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is very important because the assumption that is usually made is that the “you” the “any” and the “all” of 2 Peter 3:9 refers to everyone on the planet.

But surely “all” means all, right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. For example, when a teacher is getting ready to start a class and asks his students, “Are all here?” he is not asking if every last living person on planet earth is present in the room. Rather he is referring to all the students enrolled in the class. It is context that provides the basis for a sound interpretation.

So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without distinction, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group and not to all of mankind  “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” 2 Peter 1:1. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” (2 Peter 3:1)

Can we be even more specific? Yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 – “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect” So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3, saying:

“This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 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.” (v. 1, 8, 9 – emphasis mine)

If the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove far more than Arminians would want to prove – it would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will ultimately be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing that any person perish, then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the “any” that God wills not to perish must be limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect, and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them come to repentance.

Rather than denying election, understood in its biblical context, it is one of the strongest verses in favor of it.

Posted by John Samson on October 30, 2005 07:34 PM

From Gotquestions.com

Question: “Why is ‘accepting Christ’ mentioned in evangelism when it is not in the Bible?”

Answer: Ever since the New Testament era, Christians have found the need to coin new terms to simplify or explain various doctrines. We reference the Trinity and the protoevangelium, although neither term occurs in the Bible. While “accepting Christ” is not a phrase found in the Bible, it does have a biblical basis, just as Trinity does.

Jesus and His followers often called salvation and the subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit a “gift.” For instance, Jesus told the woman at the well, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (John 4:10). Paul said, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

 
By definition, a gift is not forced—but it must be accepted. A gift can be refused. John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful” (John 3:32-33). The word accept here is a translation of the same Greek word translated “take” in Revelation 22:17: “Whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” “Take,” “accept,” “receive”—this is what we are to do with the free gift of God. Salvation is offered, but we must accept the offer in order to receive the gift. Since we do this by exercising faith in Christ, the phrase “accept Christ” is simply shorthand for saying “place faith in Christ and receive His salvation.”

The goal of using terms like “accept Christ” is to communicate the truth more effectively to someone with limited biblical understanding. As long as a term is theologically correct and aids understanding, it need not be part of the biblical vocabulary. If, during evangelism, a certain term causes misunderstanding, then it’s good to jettison the confusing term and patiently explain the truth from Scripture. While the phrase “accept Christ” does not appear in the Bible, the concept of receiving a gift does, and the phrase seems to works well in most evangelistic contexts.

Recommended Resource: How To Book on Personal Evangelism by Larry Moyer

I’m afraid I must disagree with the last paragraph. How is ‘more effective’ to communicate Biblical truth by not using the Biblical terms? The Bible commands us to ‘repent and believe’, not merely ‘accept a gift’. In fact, it’s much easier to explain ‘repent and believe’ than supernatural ‘gift giving’, although it is correct to speak of salvation as a gift. In my opinion, the ‘accepting the gift’ approach outlined above fails to describe the true nature of the seriousness of sin! It places the sin issue on the back burner when it is the MAIN issue that needs to be addressed. As such, I think it does a great disservice to those we would want to lead to Christ in that it diminishes the very ‘gift’ of salvation! There is nothing wrong with speaking of salvation as a gift, however we must ‘keep the main thing, the MAIN THING’.

Any thoughts?

The Work That Saves

   Done is the work that Saves!

      Once and forever done.

   Finished the righteousness

      That clothes the unrighteous one.

   The love that blesses us below

      Is flowing freely to us now.

 

   The sacrifice is o’er,

      The veil is rent in twain,

   The mercy-seat is red

      With blood of victim slain;

   Why stand we then without in fear?

      The blood divine invites us near.

 

   The gate is open wide,

       The new and living way

   Is clear and free and bright,

      With love and peace and day;

   Into the holiest now we come, 

      Our present and our endless home.

 

   Upon the mercy-seat

      The High Priest sits within;

   The blood is in his hand

      Which makes and keeps us clean.

   With boldness let us now draw near,

      That blood has banished every fear.

 

   Then to the Lamb once slain

      Be glory, praise and power,

   Who died and lives again,

      Who liveth evermore;

   Who loved and washed us in his blood,

      Who made us kings and priests to God.

                          – Horatius Bonar

WND movie reviewer Drew Zahn has this to say about The Young Messiah:

“The movie’s production values and entertainment value are exemplary, a story filled with distinct and well-blended characters, believable acting, and a script well balanced with mystery and humor. This is no “Christian movie,” but a first-rate, Hollywood production. Jesus’ “uncle,” Cleopas, is a particularly endearing character, and the elderly Sarah, who hides the Holy Family, is a true delight. The entire film is an intriguing exercise in speculation about both the boy Jesus and his earthly father, Joseph, whom Scripture is also largely silent about … so long as we all realize this is merely speculation. It’s not meant to be an addition to the biblical canon.”

This one statement speaks volumes:

“This is no “Christian movie,” but a first-rate, Hollywood production.”

I have absolutely no idea how it rates as a Hollywood production, but I definitely and wholeheartedly agree that it is NOT a “Christian movie.”

In his review, Zahn also rightly states:

“The Young Messiah,” however, is not a catechism, not doctrine, not the biblical story. It’s an exercise, a poem or a song about Jesus in movie form, and an entertaining one at that.” (emphasis mine).

And here are three of my ‘issues’:

1. It’s out of Hollywood and by nature is designed to take in money, from anyone and everyone who chooses to shell out twenty bucks (movie and popcorn/snacks).

2. Since it’s out of Hollywood and designed to make money, the message of the gospel that calls sinners to repentance or face judgment probably won’t be there. It will follow in the footsteps of previous recent films that also missed the true gospel.

3. Zahn was right in saying that the movie is ‘entertaining’. Does the Son of God, who came to save his people from their sins, deserve to be served up as ‘entertainment’ (the great American idol), even if it’s fiction?

There are of course other issues, like the matter of the source material for the movie, which most of the thousands of people and many ‘Christian’ organizations promoting it seem to be ignoring. I choose to think they are ignoring that little tidbit because the alternative of knowing the ‘rest of the story’ (Jesus killing his playmates) and promoting it anyway is beyond the pale.

Anyway, that’s Dan’s 2 cents. . .