Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533): “So the blessed Peter says, The Lord does not delay in his promise, as some regard delay, but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) … He does not want anyone to perish, namely of those whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29). No one of these perishes. For who opposes his will (Rom. 9:19)? These are visited freely by the mercy of God before the end of this present life; they are moved for their salvation with a contrite and humbled heart and all by divine gift are converted to penance to which they are divinely predestined by free grace, so that, converted, they may not perish, but have life eternal … Because he who has done all things he wanted wants this, what he wants he always does invincibly. And so that is fulfilled in them which the unchangeable and invincible will of almighty God has, whose will, just as it cannot be changed in its plans, so neither is his power stopped or hindered in its execution; because neither is anyone able justly to censure his justice, nor can anyone stand opposed to his mercy … Therefore, when the Apostle Peter says that God is patient, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), let us not so understand the word ‘all’ as stated above, as if there is no one who will not do a fitting penance, but we must understand ‘all’ here as those to whom God gives penance in such a way that he may also give them the gift of perseverance, i.e., those who are converted by the prevenient divine mercy in such a way that by the same subsequent mercy, they will never go back to the serious sins which they have renounced. These are the ones to whom, as Paul says, God grants … repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth and that they may return to their sense out of the devil’s snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will (2 Tim. 2:25-26)” (De remissione peccatorum 2.2, 1-3; quoted in Francis X. Gumerlock, Fulgentius of Ruspe on the Saving Will of God: The Development of a Sixth-Century African Bishop’s Interpretation of I Timothy 2:4 During the Semi-Pelagian Controversy [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009], pp. 62-64).
John Calvin (1509-1564): “‘God does not will that any should perish but that he should receive all to repentance’ [II Peter 3:9 p.]. But the solution of the difficulty occurs immediately in the second phrase, because the will to receive to repentance can only be understood in the sense generally taught. Conversion is obviously in God’s hand: when he promises that he will give a certain few a heart of flesh but leave the rest with a heart of stone [Ezek. 36:26], let him be asked whether he wills to convert all … God is said to have ordained from eternity those whom he wills to embrace in love, and those upon whom he wills to vent his wrath” (Institutes 3.24.16, 17, pp. 984, 985).
“Calvin’s comments on 2 Peter 3:9 (“not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance”) explain that this passage does not refer to God’s secret purpose, ‘according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel.’ In the gospel, God “stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.’ Calvin does not say that God desires the salvation of the reprobate. In fact, when he cites this passage in the Institutes, he says that when God ‘promises that he will give a certain few a heart of stone [Ezek. 36:26], let him be asked whether he wants to convert all’ (Raymond A. Blacketer, “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed: A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation,” Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 35, no. 1 [April, 2000], p. 49).
John Knox (c. 1514-1572): “The Apostle Saint Peter saith, ‘The Lord that hath promised is not slow, but he is long suffering towards us, while that he will none to perish, but will receive all to repentance’ [II Peter 3:9]. The Apostle here meaneth not that all, without exception, shall be received to life by true repentance, but that the cause why God so long deferreth (as it were) the extreme judgment, is, that the elect number of God’s children may be complete (as answer was given to those that cried under the altar, to be revenged of the tyrannies that dwell on the earth [Rev. 6:9-11]) of these his elect children God will none to perish, as before is said. But there is another sort of sinner, far different from these. For neither are they displeased with themselves, neither yet hate they iniquity, but against God’s express commandments furiously they run, with Cain to murder the innocent, with Pharaoh to oppress the people of God, with Judas to betray the known and professed verity; and, finally so delight they in all filthiness and impiety, that they can not repent. The eyes of such be blinded, their hearts are hardened, they are given over into a reprobate mind. And for them doth not Christ Jesus pray [John 17:9], and therefore they can do nothing but headlong run from evil to worse, as the Devil (to whose tyranny they are committed) doth drive them, till finally they come to perdition; which end was appointed unto them, not against God’s will, but by his will immutable in his eternal counsel. For no loss will he that the severity of his judgments be seen in the vessels of wrath, than that the riches of his grace be praised in the vessels of mercy [Rom. 9:22-23]. Storm and rage, spew forth your venom and blaspheme, till you provoke God’s vengeance at once to be poured forth upon your own heads; this sentence will be never retracted. He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he maketh hard-hearted [Rom. 9:18]. That God in himself hath but one will, which is holy, just, and permanent, that in him there is no contrarity; that he is faithful, and doth perform whatsoever he doth promise” (On Predestination, in Answer to the Cavillations by an Anabaptist [1560], pp. 417-418; cf. 360; spelling and punctuation modernized).
“A number of interpreters, [Theodore] Beza [1519-1605] notes, distort this passage [i.e., II Pet. 3:9] in order to remove the distinction between eternal election and reprobation, not realizing in the meantime that they get themselves caught by Charybdis while seeking to flee Scylla. For if that is the case, people would perish contrary to God’s will. A permission that is indifferent and separate from the decree is more Epicurean than Christian. Those, on the other hand, who would assert that in reality the will of God can be changed utter an even greater impiety than Epicurus” (Raymond A. Blacketer, “Blaming Beza: The Development of Definite Atonement in the Reformed Tradition,” in David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson [eds.], From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013], p. 131).
Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560): “Finally, we believe according to the Word of God that in the time ordained of God (Acts 3:21; 1 Peter 4:7), which time the very angels do not know (Matt. 24:36; 25:13; 1 Thess. 5:1-2), Jesus Christ seeing the number of his elect fulfilled and accomplished (Rev. 6:11; 2 Peter 3:9) will come from heaven bodily with His divine majesty (Acts 1:11; Matt. 24:30), this old world being consumed by fire (2 Peter 3:10)” (quoted in James T. Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], p. 333).
Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563), a Hungarian Reformed creed drafted by Péter Melius Juhász (1532-1572) who appears to have used Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560) with considerable modifications: “We believe, from the Word of God, that the day is to come at a certain time which even the angels do not know, when, after the number of the elect is fulfilled and the world has been purged by fire, Jesus Christ will come from heaven in His visible and true human form (but clothed in divine majesty), that all men that have existed from the beginning of the world may appear before Him (Acts 3:21; 1 Peter 4:7; Matt. 24:13, 36; 1 Thess. 5:2; Rev. 6:11; 2 Peter 3:9, 12; Acts 1:11; Matt. 24:30)” (quoted in James T. Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], p. 751).
Jacobus Kimedoncius (c.1550-1596): “The Lord is not slack of his promises, as some count slackness, but he is patient towards us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance [II Pet. 3:9]. If he wills none to perish, it is false that in his eternal counsel he has decreed, and therefore wills, that some, yea very many, should perish. Again, if he wills all to repent, it is false that God wills not that all by repentance should be brought to Christ and live. In these [Samuel] Huber [Kimedoncius’ Lutheran adversary] wonderfully delights himself, but all in vain, so long as that [word] of the Psalmist stands, Our God is in heaven, he does whatever he wills [Ps. 115:3], and that [word] of the apostle, On whom he will he has mercy and whom he will he hardens [Rom. 9:18]. But lest we should seem to set one Scripture against another, to reconcile them, we must know that the saying of Peter is not without cause expounded by learned men of the universality of the elect, not only because the like restraint is very often [found] in the like places of the sacred Scriptures, but also because the matter itself seems here to require it. For what? Is the end of the world deferred for the reprobates’ sake? When they shall believe, says Ambrose [on I Timothy 2], that are predestinate unto eternal life, the resurrection shall come” (Of the Redemption of Mankind, trans. Hugh Ince [London: Felix Kingston, 1598], p. 261; spelling and punctuation modernized).
David Dickson (1583-1663):
[1] “This delaying doth not proceed from slackness, as some judge, but from the patience of God towards us, to wit, the elect, whereas many as yet are not converted, and whereof God will have none perish, but all (in his time) to come to repentance [II Pet. 3:9], which cannot be unless the coming of Christ should be deferred to a season. For if God should anticipate the time of judgment, decreed by himself, some of them, which he hath chosen to salvation from eternity, should perish” (Commentary on All St. Paul’s Epistles, in loc.).
[2] “The scripture sheweth us that there is an innumerable multitude of redeemed persons, and a sort of universality of them extended unto all nations, and ages, and states of men; so that this huge multitude for whose redemption Christ’s blood was shed (Matt. xxvi. 28), is justly called by the name of a world, an elect world (John iii. 16); to be called out of that reprobate world, for which Christ refuseth to intercede (John xvii. 9). The truth of this matter, the redeemed do acknowledge, in their worshipping Christ their Mediator: ‘And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation’ (Rev. v. 9). These are the ‘all men’ whom God will have saved, and doth save (1 Tim. ii. 4); these are the ‘all men’ of whom the apostle speaks (2 Pet. iii. 9). God is patient toward us (to wit, his elect), not willing that any of us should perish, but that we all should come to repentance. And this the apostle giveth for a reason of the Lord’s deferring his coming, till all the elect should be brought in, of whom many were not yet converted in the apostle’s time, and many were not yet born; and if Christ should not delay his coming, till they were born, and brought in to reconciliation with God, the number of the elect should be cut short” (Of the Covenant of Redemption, Part I, 3).
Geneva Bible (1599): “The Lord will surely come, because he has promised: and neither sooner nor later than he has promised. A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish” (Comm. on II Peter 3:8-9).
The Geneva Theses (1649), drafted by Theodore Tronchin (1582-1657) and Antoine Léger (1594-1661), approved by Geneva’s Venerable Company of Pastors and signed on their behalf by the moderator, Joannes Jacobus Sartorius (1619-1690): “Rejection of the error of those: Who teach that … most especially the places of Scripture (Ezek. 18:21 etc. and 33:11; John 3:16; I Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) ought to be extended to each and every man and by these the universality of love and grace ought to be proved” (quoted in James T. Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, vol. 4 [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014], p. 421; cf. p. 417).
John Owen (1616-1683):
[1] “But now, evidently and directly, the end of that patience and forbearance of God which is exercised in Christ, and discovered in him to us, is the saving and bringing unto God those towards whom he is pleased to exercise them. And therefore Peter tells you, 2 Pet. iii.9, that he is ‘long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;’ –that is, all us towards whom he exercises forbearance; for that is the end of it, that his will concerning our repentance and salvation may be accomplished” (The Works of John Owen [Great Britain: Banner, 1967], vol. 2, p. 88).
[2] “He is patient towards his saints; he bears with them, suffers from them. He is ‘patient to us-ward,’ 2 Pet. iii.9,–that is, that believe. The gospel is the word of Christ’s patience even to believers. A soul acquainted with the gospel knows that there is no property of Christ rendered more glorious therein than that of his patience. That he should bear with so many unkindnesses, so many causeless breaches, so many neglects of his love, so many affronts done to his grace, so many violations of engagements as he doth, it manifests his gospel to be not only the word of his grace but also of his patience. He suffers also from them in all the reproaches they bring upon his name and ways; and he suffers in them, for ‘in all their afflictions he is afflicted'” (The Works of John Owen [Great Britain: Banner, 1967], vol. 6, p. 138).
[3] “‘The will of God,’ say some, ‘for the salvation of all, is here set down both negatively, that he would not have any perish, and positively, that he would have all come to repentance …’ Many words need not be spent in answer to this objection, wrested from the misunderstanding and palpable corrupting of the sense of the words of the apostle. That indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in an answerable proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed, is a rule in the opening of the Scripture … Will not common sense teach us that us is to be repeated in both the following clauses, to make them up complete and full,—namely, ‘Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance’? … Now, truly, to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world (even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly … I shall not need add any thing concerning the contradictions and inextricable difficulties wherewith the opposite interpretation is accompanied … The text is clear, that it is all and only the elect whom he would not have to perish” (The Works of John Owen [Great Britain: Banner, 1967], vol. 10, pp. 348-349).
[4] “Also, ‘he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,’ 2 Pet. iii.9, even all those towards whom he exercises patience and long-suffering for that end; which, as the apostle here informs us, is ‘to us-ward,’–that is, to believers, of whom he is speaking.(The Works of John Owen [Great Britain: Banner, 1967], vol. 12, p. 559).
Francis Turretin (1623-1687): “[The will of God here spoken of] should not be extended further than to the elect and believers (for whose sake God puts off the consummation of ages until their number shall be completed … Now to this it is evident that the apostle looked: (1) from the pronoun ‘us’ (which precedes with sufficient clearness designating the elect and believers, as elsewhere more than once) and to explain which he adds ‘not willing that any’ (i.e., of us) ‘should perish’; so that the pronoun should be repeated apo koinou as is often the case; and (2) from the fact that Peter wishes to give the reason of that longsuffering through which God puts off the consummation of the ages (which cannot be drawn from his command, but from his wise counsel for the sake of the elect, by which, as on account of the elect alone, he preserves the world, so he puts off the promise of his coming, even until each and every one of them is brought unto salvation, Rev. 6:11). Nor is it astonishing that, on account of the elect (no one of whom God wills to perish), the end of the world should be put off. For in like manner Christ observes ‘except those days would be shortened’ (which were about to come to the whole of Judaea) ‘there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened’ (Mt. 24:22). As therefore here the days of evil should be shortened on account of the elect Jews (that they might not be overwhelmed with the burden of calamities), so the last day is put off on account of the elect (who are to be brought to Christ, until their whole number be made up). Finally, he speaks of them whom God wills to come to repentance, not only by inviting to it by the precepts and promises of his word, but by working it by the efficacy of the Spirit (since he speaks of those in whom the promise of God should be fulfilled [Mt. 24:9, 13], who are no other than the elect)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992], pp. 412-413).
Stephen Charnock (1628-1680): “[God’s] delaying his promise is not slackness to his people (2 Pet. iii. 9) … Since God hath glorified his justice on Christ, as a surety for sinners, his patience is so far from interfering with the rights of his justice, that it promotes it; it is dispensed to this end, that God might pardon with honor, both upon the score of purchased mercy and contented justice; that by a penitent sinner’s return his mercy might be acknowledged free, and the satisfaction of his justice by Christ be glorified in believing: for he is long-suffering from an unwillingness ‘that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance’ (2 Pet. iii. 9); i.e. all to whom the promise is made, for to such the apostle speaks, and calls it ‘long-suffering to us-ward;’ and repentance being an acknowledgement of the demerit of sin, and breaking off unrighteousness, gives a particular glory to the freeness of mercy, and the equity of justice” (The Existence and Attributes of God [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, repr. 1996], II:480, 486).
Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706):
[1] “The Pelagians as well as the Socinians, as also the Jesuits and Arminians, that they might safeguard man’s [supposed] self-determined choice, taught that God indeed wills that each and every person would be saved, but only by his conditioned or antecedent will, if they themselves should have willed to believe and repent. The Lutherans, although they do not profess that the choice is self-determined, nevertheless do profess such a kind of choice which can positively not resist the Holy Spirit as he gives birth, as it were, to conversion and faith in us. They likewise state that God wills that each and every person would be saved. The Reformed indeed do believe that God wills all to be saved, because Scripture constantly testifies to this (1 Tim. 2:4; Ezek. 18:23; 2 Peter 3:9), but they do not believe that he wills that each and every person would be saved, because Scripture nowhere says this. Therefore, they admit that God wills that all be saved, that is, anyone, or with Scripture as our interpreter, from every generation, people, and nation (Rev. 5:9), namely, as many as Christ would purchase, as many as would believe; not, however, each and every person … Arguments of the Reformed … (2) In this very business of salvation and predestination he expressly professes that he does not will that each and every person would be saved—in fact, he created the wicked for the day of punishment (Prov. 16:4), he hardens whom he wills (Rom. 9:18), he has prepared vessels of wrath for destruction (Rom. 9:22), and he has prescribed not a few for judgment (2 Peter 2:9). Furthermore, he testifies that (3) he denies the necessary means of salvation to the greatest number (John 17:9), and (4) he does not call each and every one to partake of grace (Ps. 147:20; Acts 14:16). In fact, (5) he forbids the gospel of salvation to be preached to many (Matt. 10:5; Acts 16:6-7). Also, (6) he does not will to give faith to each and every person (2 Thess. 3:2; Acts 13:48). So then it must be entirely denied that God, by his decretive will, wills that each and every person will be saved, unless (7) we wish (a) to lead the divine omnipotence into a most pressing crisis, inasmuch as it cannot achieve what it wills In earnest and intends would happen; (b) to establish contrary wills in God, of which one wills, for example, that Judas be saved, and the other does not; (c) to assert a mutable will for him who is in all things immutable, a will by which now he does not will what previously he earnestly willed; (d) likewise, to attribute an ineffective will to him who can do all that he wills; (e) to attribute to him a will that is dependent upon the creatures, and also temporary; and, in fact, (f) unless we wish to ascribe to the most wise being a fatuous will, a will by which he earnestly wills what he knows that he will never achieve” (Theoretical-Practical Theology, Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel Beeke [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], pp. 313, 314-315; italics original).
[2] “So also in 2 Peter 3:9, the apostle does not say that God wills all altogether to be saved and none of them to perish, but only all believers: ‘He is patient toward us, not willing that any of us should perish’” (Theoretical-Practical Theology, Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel Beeke [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], p. 318; italics original).
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711): “2 Peter 3:9 refers to the elect who will come to repentance and who must first be gathered in before the world perishes. It also makes mention of the command and the declaration of the gospel which commands everyone who hears it to repent, speaking of both God’s pleasure and displeasure relative to repentance or the lack of it” (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 1 [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992], p. 227).
Matthew Henry (1662-1714): “What men count slackness is truly longsuffering, and that to us-ward; it is giving more time to His own people, whom He hath chosen before the foundation of the world, many of whom are not as yet converted; and those who are in a state of grace and favour with God are to advance in knowledge and holiness, and in the exercise of faith and patience, to abound in good works, doing and suffering what they are called to, that they may bring glory to God and improve in a meetness for heaven; for God is not willing that any of these should perish, but that all of them should come to repent” (Comm. on II Peter 3:9).
John Gill (1697-1771): “It is not true that God is not willing any one individual of the human race should perish, since he has made and appointed the wicked for the day of evil [Prov. 16:4], even ungodly men, who are fore-ordained to this condemnation [Jude 4], such as are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction [Rom. 9:22]; yea, there are some to whom God sends strong delusions, that they may believe a lie, that they all might be damned [II Thess. 2:11-12] ... Nor is it his will that all men, in this large sense, should come to repentance, since he withholds from many both the means and grace of repentance … The key, therefore, to open this text lies in these words … to usward … called beloved [II Peter 3:1, 8, 14, 17]. Besides the design of these words is to establish the saints in, and comfort them with the coming of Christ, until which, God was long-suffering towards them, and which they were to account salvation [v. 15]” (The Cause of God and Truth [Grand Rapids, MI: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1980], pp. 62-63).
James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862): “we shall consider the most forcible [texts], or those to which Arminians frequently appeal. The first which I shall notice is 2 Peter iii. 9: ‘Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. I think it exceedingly doubtful whether the words any and all have an indiscriminate application in this passage. The context would seem to confine them within the limits of the ‘us’ spoken of just above. This will appear by taking the whole verse in its connection: ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise’–that is, the promise of His second coming–’as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to usward.’ To whom? We cannot refer the ‘us’ to any but those who in the eighth verse are addressed as ‘beloved.’ It would seem, then, to designate only God’s elect. Now, why is God long-suffering to His elect? Because He is ‘not willing that any’–that is, any of them–’should perish,’ but that all–that is, all of them–’should come to repentance.’ In other words, Christ delays His second coming, and will continue to delay it, until all His elect are savingly gathered into His kingdom and His mystical body completed. This, I confess, appears to me to be the most natural and obvious interpretation of the passage. It certainly is grammatical, and harmonizes well with the context” (The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell [Edinburgh: Banner, 1974], vol. 2, p. 167; italics Thornwell’s).
Thomas E. Peck (1822-1893): “The time is fixed; but so long as there breathes upon earth one solitary human being for whom Jesus has laid down his life, who has been ordained to faith, repentance, and life eternal, and destined to be an assessor with Jesus upon his throne, so long shall the heavens contain him whom our soul loveth but after the number of the elect shall have been accomplished, not one moment longer. Then shall he be revealed, and the earth with all its works and wickedness be given to the flames” (The Writings of Thomas E. Peck, ed. T. C. Johnson [Edinburgh: Banner, 1999], vol. 3, p. 390).
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920): “But notice carefully how all that profit is lost, and the sense of it becomes debatable if, for other reasons, the idea of general grace is injected into the text, for I arrive, then, at this absurd reasoning: ‘Jesus cannot come yet, because God’s will must be fulfilled, and according to God’s will, all individuals must first come to conversion!’ Yet … if Jesus cannot come until all men come to conversion, ‘then Jesus will never come,’ because, first, there are already hundreds and thousands of people no longer living who died unconverted and for whom, therefore, that postponement of Jesus’ return to this world no longer has any significance. Second, there are millions more who will die tomorrow and the day after or in another year without ever having heard of Jesus, and for whom that delay has no benefit, either. Finally, this return of Jesus can be unfulfilled indefinitely. If God allows new generations of people continuously to be born without setting a maximum number of inhabitants, the return of Jesus will have to be delayed until these people, too, are converted. And that delay would be indefinite, since the population of the world continuously increases in an astonishing manner and the possibility multiplies daily that not all will come to conversion. This line of thinking does not ring true. It does not make sense. It is the most absurd thinking one could imagine and is without rhyme or reason. No, if I want to demonstrate why the Lord God, according to human wisdom, fulfills the promise of Christ’s return somewhat later than we had first imagined, then that is only intelligible if I have a firm point of reference from which to calculate. If the total number of people that will be born is fixed, and if God knows for whom, from among all men, a place must be prepared in his heaven, yes, then I understand very well that Jesus cannot return before all have safely arrived. The line of thought is completely sound, clear and transparent when I say, ‘God is delaying because there are some unconverted who are elect, and God does not want any of the number of the elect to be absent one day, even if it be only a few, but he wants all of them to have come to repentance before Jesus appears.’ … Literally nothing of this entire objection of general grace remains. In II Peter 3:9 nothing else can be meant but this: ‘Jesus cannot come until the number of the elect is full, and since many of the elect are not yet converted, he is postponing his second coming by being longsuffering. He does not want some of them to perish through his premature return, but he wants all of them to come to conversion first” (Particular Grace [Grandville, MI: RFPA, 2001], pp. 47-48).
A. W. Pink (1886-1952):
[1] “Perhaps the one passage which has presented the greatest difficulty to those who have seen that passage after passage in Holy Writ plainly teaches the election of a limited number unto salvation is 2 Peter 3:9: ‘not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.’ The first thing to be said upon the above passage is that, like all other scripture, it must be understood and interpreted in the light of its context. What we have quoted in the preceding paragraph is only part of the verse, and the last part of it at that! Surely it must be allowed by all that the first half of the verse needs to be taken into consideration. In order to establish what these words are supposed by many to mean, viz., that the words ‘any’ and ‘all’ are to be received without any qualification, it must be shown that the context is referring to the whole human race! If this cannot be shown, if there is no premise to justify this, then the conclusion also must be unwarranted. Let us then ponder the first part of the verse. ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise.’ Note ‘promise’ in the singular number, not ‘promises.’ What promise is in view? The promise of salvation? Where, in all Scripture, has God ever promised to save the whole human race!! Where indeed? No, the ‘promise’ here referred to is not about salvation. What then is it? The context tells us. ‘Knowing this, first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?’ (vv. 3, 4). The context then refers to God’s promise to send back His beloved Son. But many long centuries have passed, and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. True, but long as the delay may seem to us, the interval is short in the reckoning of God. As the proof of this we are reminded, ‘But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (v. 8). In God’s reckoning of time, less than two days have yet passed since He promised to send back Christ. But more, the delay in the Father sending back His beloved Son is not only due to no ‘slackness’ on His part, but it is also occasioned by His ‘longsuffering.’ His long-suffering to whom? The verse we are now considering tells us: ‘but is longsuffering to usward.’ And whom are the ‘usward’?—the human race, or God’s own people? In the light of the context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, ‘This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.’ And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares, ‘But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, etc.’ (v. 8). The ‘usward’ then are the ‘beloved’ of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are ‘them that have obtained (not ‘exercised,’ but ‘obtained’ as God’s sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet. 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument—the ‘usward’ are the elect of God. Let us now quote the verse as a whole: ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.’ Could anything be clearer? The ‘any’ that God is not willing should perish, are the ‘usward’ to whom God is ‘longsuffering,’ the ‘beloved’ of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God will not send back His Son until ‘the fulness of the Gentiles be come in’ (Rom. 11:25). God will not send back Christ till that ‘people’ whom He is now ‘taking out of the Gentiles’ (Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him. Thank God for His ‘longsuffering to us-ward.’ Had Christ come back twenty years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not end until the last of the ‘other sheep’ of John 10:16 are safely folded—then will Christ return” (The Sovereignty of God [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008], pp. 205-207).
[2] “The last clause of II Peter 3:9 is frequently quoted, but without any attention being given to the first part of it. Is that honest? The ‘any’ whom the Lord is ‘not willing’ should perish, is clearly defined: verse 8 shows that it is God’s ‘beloved’ who are here addressed and referred to. The ‘promise’ which He is ‘not slack’ in fulfilling, has reference to the return of Christ (v. 4), which ‘scoffers’ (v. 3) suppose will never be fulfilled. The great reason why God has not yet sent back His Son is because the last of His elect have not been regenerated: all of them shall come to repentance before human history can be would up and verse 10 fulfilled. Thus, the ‘any’ looks back to the ‘us-ward’ in the previous part of the verse!” (The Atonement [Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications, n.d.], p. 260).
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965):
[1] “With a view to the glorious hope of the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, believers are exhorted to account the longsuffering of God as salvation [II Pet. 3:15]. In the epistles of Peter, the church is conceived as the company of strangers and sojourners in the world, who have the promise of final salvation and hope for the realization of that promise, but who, while in the world, must suffer for Christ’s sake. Especially because of their present state of distress and tribulation in the world, they fervently long for the realization of the promise and for the coming of the Lord in glory. Undoubtedly, they had expected the coming of the Lord at an early date, forgetting that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as one day [v. 8]. Under all these circumstances they began to be impatient. Their condition was aggravated by the scorn of the mockers, who pointed to the patent fact that all things remained as they had been from the beginning [vv. 3-4]. Thus the saints considered it slackness that the Lord had not yet fulfilled His promise. But the apostle exclaims that this apparent tarrying of the Lord is not to be looked upon as slackness [v. 9]. This is only a negative way of saying that He will come as soon as possible for the salvation of His elect. As the Lord expressed it at the close of the parable of the unjust judge, He will avenge them speedily [Luke 18:7-8]. The fact that He is still tarrying must accounted as His longsuffering toward the elect. They must all be saved. He is not willing that any of them should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Only after the number of the elect is full can the promise of God be finally and completely realized. It is not necessary to add that the interpretation that explains the term all as referring to all men is utterly impossible” (Reformed Dogmatics [Grandville, MI: RFPA, 2004], vol. 1, pp. 168-169).
[2] “Do not miss the meaning of these words. He is longsuffering over us, over his people, over those who look for the hope of his coming, over his eternally beloved church. To read this as if the text spoke of a longsuffering of the Most High over the wicked is to change the word of God, and to deprive these words of their precious comfort for the waiting and hoping people of God; it is to cast the bread of the children before the dogs and to let the little ones go hungry. Not over the wicked, not over the scoffing enemy the Lord is longsuffering, but over his children. His forbearance is over the wicked, meaning that he would strike them down into perdition immediately, were not his unchangeable purpose to realize all his counsel. But his longsuffering is over his beloved people. Thus according to these words of Peter, the Lord is longsuffering over us. Thus it is in the conclusion of the parable of the unrighteous judge: ‘And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear along with them [be longsuffering over them]?’ (Luke 18:7). Longsuffering over us. Precious word of blessed comfort! It implies, first, that the almighty, triune, covenant God remembers his people constantly in everlasting, unchangeable, and unfathomable love. He forgets them not for a moment. A mother might forget her nursing babe. Although she might forget, the Lord never forgets his beloved. They are dear to him; they have a constant place in his heart; he has engraved them in the palms of his hands. It implies, second, that because of this everlasting love he is concerned about them as they are in the world. He is not indifferent regarding their suffering distress, but is keenly sensitive with respect to all their afflictions. Those who touch his people touch the apple of his eye. So it cannot be counted slackness if he does not immediately deliver them out of all their troubles and realize the promise of his coming and the final glory of his kingdom. In his everlasting love he longs to save them to the full and would avenge them quickly. He is, however, longsuffering over them. As the husband longs to gather the precious fruit into the barn and would do so immediately, but is longsuffering until the proper time of the harvest, so the Lord would gather his people into his everlasting home make them partakers of the final glory of his kingdom without delay, were it not that the harvest must be ripe and all his good counsel must first be fulfilled. Humanly speaking, for the term longsuffering is human, the Lord restrains the promptings of his love until the hour of deliverance has fully come … How foolish, how utterly contrary to the meaning of the text, how absolutely impossible is the interpretation that would make ‘all’ inclusive of every man in the universalistic sense. Foolish, because it is contrary to the plain teaching of the word of God. Contrary to the evident meaning of the text, because the Lord is not longsuffering over all, over us, the people of his free and sovereign love, and all is as comprehensive as us. Impossible, because it is given as a reason that the Lord abides and does not immediately fulfil the promise of his coming. He wills that all should first come to repentance. He wills not that any should perish. Until all will have been saved, he will not come again. But never would he come again if his glorious revelations must wait for the salvation of all men without exception” (All Glory to the Only Good God [Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2013], pp. 193-194, 195).
Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985): “Arminians have used the verse in defense of their theory of universal atonement. They believe that God willed to save every human being without exception and that something beyond his control happened so as to defeat his eternal purpose. The doctrine of universal redemption is not only refuted by Scripture generally, but the passage in question makes nonsense on such a view … Peter is telling us that Christ’s return awaits the repentance of certain people. Now, if Christ’s return awaited the repentance of every individual without exception, Christ would never return … This is no new interpretation. The Similitudes viii, xi,1 in the Shepherd of Hermas (c. A.D. 130-150) … says ‘But the Lord, being long-suffering, wishes (thelei) those who were called (ten klesin ten genomenen) through his Son to be saved.’ … It is the called or elect whom God wills to save” (I & II Peter [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980], p. 71).
John H. Gerstner (1914-1996): “Murray and Stonehouse insist that, though God truly desires the salvation of the reprobate, He does not decree that. Rather, He decrees the opposite. They recognize theirs as a very dangerous position and appeal to great mystery: ‘We have found [e.g., in II Peter 3:9] that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious, and why he has not brought to pass in the exercise of his omnipotent power and grace, what is his ardent pleasure lies hidden in the sovereign counsel of his will.’ However this is not “mystery” but bald contradiction … The question facing us here is whether God could “desire” that which He does not bring to pass. There is no question at all that He can desire certain things, and these things which He desires He possesses and enjoys in Himself eternally. Otherwise, He would not be the ever-blessed God. The Godhead desires each Person in the Godhead and enjoys each eternally. The Godhead also desires to create, and He (though He creates in time) by creating enjoys so doing eternally. Otherwise, He would be eternally bereft of a joy He presently possesses and would have increased in joy if He later possessed it—both of which notions are impossible. He would thereby have changed (which is also impossible) and would have grown in the wisdom of a new experience (which is blasphemous to imagine). If God’s very blessedness means the oneness of His desire and His experience, is not our question (whether He could desire what He does not desire) rhetorical? Not only would He otherwise be bereft of some blessedness which would reduce Him to finitude, but He would be possessed of some frustration which would not only bereave Him of some blessedness, but would manifestly destroy all blessedness. This is clearly the case because His blessedness would be mixed with infinite regret. Our God would be the ever-miserable, ever-blessed God. His torment in the eternal damnation of sinners would be as exquisite as it is everlasting. He would actually suffer infinitely more than the wicked. Indeed, He would Himself be wicked because He would have sinfully desired what His omniscience would have told Him He could never have. But why continue to torture ourselves? God, if he could be frustrated in His desires, simply would not be God” (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000], pp. 143-144, 145; italics Gerstner’s).
William Young (1918-2015): “The broader context of 2 Peter 3 confirms the particularist view of the passage [i.e., verse 9]. Why does the second coming of Christ seem to be delayed? Because in the longsuffering of God the elect, who sometimes long resist the gospel overtures, must all be made willing in the day of God’s power before they stand before the throne on the great day” (“The Free Offer of the Gospel“).
Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013): “Finally, there is the statement of 2 Peter 3:9 which the universalist alleges also teaches a universal saving will in God: ‘[The Lord] is patient with you, because he does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance.’ Again, the contextual universe will allow no such conclusion. In 3:8 Peter addresses those to whom he is writing as ‘Beloved’ [agapetoi], a term everywhere acknowledged to be a term for Christians or God’s elect. Then to them he says: ‘[The Lord] is patient with you’ (referring to the Christians he is addressing), offering as his ground for this reassuring promise to these Christians the axiomatic truth: ‘because he does not want any [of you elect] to perish, but all [of you] to come to repentance.’ Clearly the referent of his ‘any’ is the Christian elect to whom he has been speaking and his ‘all’ refers to the elect of God in their entirety; and his point is God’s concern for the church: the Lord, he says, is delaying his coming in order that he might bring the whole elect of God to repentance. To argue to the contrary, that is [as John Owen states in The Death of Death, p. 236], ‘to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and everyone in the world (even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly’ … Calvin argues that what Peter means here is that God wills that those be saved whom he brings to repentance, and then he argues that God, in whose hand resides the authority to grant repentance, does not will to give repentance to all men without exception (Institutes, III.xxiv.16)” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998], p. 695).
R. C. Sproul (1939-2017): “The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any should perish. The whole clause is important: ‘but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.’ What is the antecedent of any? It is clearly us. Does us refer to all of us humans? Or does it refer to us Christians, the people of God? Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish” (Chosen by God [England: Scripture Press, 1987], p. 197).
Ivan Foster: “Again, please note the phrase: ‘And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation.’ This tells us why the Lord ‘delayeth’ His coming! In an earlier verse in this chapter (verse 9), note what Peter had said. He here explains why the Lord is not ‘slack’ or slow and delaying regarding His promised return but rather out of His longsuffering to ‘us-ward’ (toward His elect), He delays that all may be gathered in and none for whom He died might be lost. These words are very often misapplied to sinners generally, whereas it is stated clearly that it is ‘to us-ward’ that this patience and longsuffering is displayed” (“Living for the Lord’s Return,” Watching and Waiting [vol. 30, no. 15], p. 270).
John Bolt (1947-): “The first section of this four-part set of reflections [in Abraham Kuyper’s Particular Grace] is headed, Geen Christus pro omnibus (No Christ for All), and in it Kuyper take a close look at three biblical passages used by defenders of universal or common grace in a soteriological sense [including the well-meant offer]: 1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4; and 2 Peter 3:9. He begins by addressing a presumption he finds in many allegedly ‘orthodox’ circles in the Dutch Reformed Church that the expression Christus pro omnibus expresses evangelical truth. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, Kuyper explains that ‘By “Christ for all” is meant that Christ, according to the purpose and extent of his self-sacrifice, died for all men without exception.’ What is chilling about Kuyper’s opening gambit in this first meditation is the fierce evangelical passion with which the proponents of this ‘Christ for all’ proclaim it. Kuyper describes one of them ‘shouting shamelessly’ from the pulpit, ‘Whoever preaches another gospel is accursed!’ The slogan was so prevalent at the time, says Kuyper, that ‘whoever does not yield to that notion is cast out of the synagogue.’ Kuyper explains further that, try as he may, he ‘could not live with the pro omnibus‘ and received the courage to ‘venture at least a feeble attempt at a counter defense’ from ‘a whole cloud of glorious witnesses who were uniquely gifted by God’s Holy Spirit.’ It is his intention, he adds, ‘to demonstrate briefly that this cloud of witnesses actually did not know a grace that would not be particular.’ For our purposes in this essay, we need not follow Kuyper’s extended exposition of the three passages mentioned above; we need only take note of his conclusion: ‘The three major texts with which people usually attempt to terrify the one who confesses particular grace have been tested and examined so thoroughly that in that examination those arguments completely collapsed. There is nothing in these texts which provides proof for general grace [including a well-meant offer]’ … Kuyper mines Scripture and the history of the church in order to build an overwhelming cumulative case for the preposition that grace must be particular” (“Herman Hoeksema Was Right (On the Three Points That Really Matter)” in Arie C. Leder and Richard A. Muller [eds.], Biblical Interpretation and Doctrinal Formulation in the Reformed Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014], pp. 298-299; italics Bolt’s).
James R. White: “This is surely the most popular passage cited (almost never with any reference to the context) to ‘prove’ that God could not possibly desire to save a specific people but instead desires to save every single individual person … Peter writes to a specific group, not to all of mankind. ‘To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours’ [II Pet. 1:1]. This not only refers to faith as a gift, as we will see in a later chapter, but it surely limits the context to the saved, for they have received this faith ‘by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ’ … There is nothing in chapter three that indicates a change in audience, and much to tell us the audience remains exactly the same. Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the Arminian is badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really saying. The patience of the Lord is displayed toward His elect people (the ‘you’ of verse 9). Therefore, the ‘not wishing any to perish’ must be limited to the same group already in view: the elect. In the same way, the ‘all to come to repentance’ must be the very same group. In essence Peter is saying the coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of God can be gathered in. Any modern Christian lives and knows Christ solely because God’s purpose has been to gather in His elect down through the ages to this present day. There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance. Instead, it is clearly His plan and His will that all the elect come to repentance, and they most assuredly will do so” (The Potter’s Freedom [Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000], pp. 145, 147-148; italics White’s).
Matthew Winzer: “It is to be clarified that the text does not say that in His longsuffering God wills that none should perish. The wording is that God is long-suffering to us-ward. That is, God acts in a particular way towards the objects of His longsuffering and that is because He is not willing that they should perish. The will here is not a will of command, but of decree. It is God acting for the purpose of procuring what He has willed. And the word should cannot signify obligation in this context. In the original, the infinitive is employed—to perish—so that a more accurate rendering would be that God ‘is not willing for any to perish.’ So, once again, the report has predicated that God both wills and does not will that all be saved, and this in the same sense, decretively. It is impossible to generalise the last clause of 2 Pet. 3:9 for the purpose of making it inclusive of all men. The clause is subordinate and the construction, eis plus the infinitive, is best understood as a final or purpose clause. As it is a subordinate clause, it is dependent upon a principal clause for its interpretation. The principal clause in this passage is the longsuffering being displayed to us-ward. It is being displayed to us-ward for the purpose that all might come to repentance. The all, therefore, must be all of us, for it is qualified by the principal clause. God is longsuffering to us-ward so that all of us might come to repentance” (“Murray on the Free Offer: A Review,” The Blue Banner [October/December, 2000], vol. 9, issue 10-12, pp. 18-19; italics Winzer’s).
Christopher J. Connors: “God is longsuffering toward His elect because he earnestly desires their repentance and salvation, ‘not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance’ [II Pet. 3:9].He therefore leads them by His Word outwardly and by His Spirit inwardly and irresistibly to repentance” (The Biblical Offer of the Gospel [Youngtown, Tasmania: The Magazine and Literature Committee of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia, n.d.], p. 32).
Sean Gerety: “Second Peter 3:9 is in reference to all of God’s elect and not all men in general” (“Janus Alive and Well: Dr. R. Scott Clark and the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel,” The Trinity Review [June-July 2011], Number 300, p. 6).
C. Matthew McMahon: “2 Peter 3:9 … is a cornerstone text for those who believe God desires the salvation of all men without distinction. It appears that it supports universal redemption. God truly does desire all men to saved, and the ‘all’ seems to be inclusive of everyone from Pharaoh to Judas, to those who suffer in hell. What then do we make of this text? The words tines, any being opposed to pantes, all are distributive of the text. But they are restrained to the antecedent ‘us,’ those to whom God is longsuffering. God is not willing that any should come to repentance; this is the us to whom His longsuffering bears salvation. God’s timetable is dependent in time on His promises to the elect, and He must gather them all in. Jesus died for those people, and He will lose none that the Father has given him. Some men had thought the second coming of Christ was going to be soon and speedily forthcoming, but then it seemed to have been delayed. Peter writes to the church since scoffers were among them deceiving the people of God that Christ would not return and that God would not make good on His promises. But God’s promises were not to be counted in slackness, for who knows the timetable of the Lord? Rather, Peter explains that God is not slow in keeping His promises, the very act of His supposed ‘slowness’ shows that He was keeping His promise in that He did not desire any of the elect to perish! God would not allow any of those who had not yet been born to “miss” their election by sending Christ back for His second coming until those who had been gathered in were ‘all’ gathered in. The force of the word ‘usward’ is important—God keeps His promises to His elect since His immutable decrees must be taken to their proper end. If for the next 150 years Jesus Christ was not to return because there would be one elect member of the church yet to be brought into the kingdom at that time, God would wait—but that does not make Him slow in keeping His promises of returning. Since Peter’s time and their expected return it has been nearly two thousand years. With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day (2 Peter 3:8). Because human beings have short-sightedness we try to define time by our agenda and timetable which may make God seem to be slow in His providential and special dealings with us. 2 Peter 3:9 actually establishes the will of God in election and reprobation. The senses, then on this passage refer to the outworking of God’s will for the elect in the compound and divided sense. His will is plain here in that the elect shall be gathered in and saved” (The Two Wills of God Made Easy: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [USA: Puritan Publications, 2016], pp. 144-145).
Simon Turpin: “In the above verses … Peter continues to deal with the scoffing of false teachers … Now, however, Peter turns to believers [2 Peter 3:8-9] and tells them not to ‘let this one fact escape your notice …’ (NASB, emphasis added) … The reason for the Lord’s slowness in coming, as Peter explains, is due to His mercy, as He ‘is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.’ The fact that Peter is saying the Lord is ‘not wishing that any should perish’ does not mean he believes in universal salvation, as he clearly believers there is a judgement to come (2 Peter 3:7, 10; cf. Acts 10:42). It should be noted that there is debate among Christians as to who the ‘any’ and the ‘all’ specifically refer to, but this is beyond the purpose of this book.3 Nonetheless, Peter goes on to remind believers that they should ‘count the patience of our Lord as salvation’ (2 Peter 3:15). God’s ‘patience’ (makrothymei) toward sinners is redemptive, as it speaks to His ‘long/massive’ (makro) capacity to contain his ‘anger’ (thymei) at sin … 3 Christians who are Arminian in their theology understand the ‘any’ and the ‘all’ in 3:9 as referring to God’s desire to save every single person alive, whereas Christians who are Calvinistic in their theology generally understand the ‘any’ and the ‘all’ to be an expansion of the ‘you’ in 3:9 and referring to God’s desire to save His elect people (3:1; cf. 1 Peter 1:1)” (Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately Overlook Creation and the Flood [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2021], pp. 201, 202, n. 3).
Likewise, the Venerable Bede (c.672/673-735) (Francis X. Gumerlock, Fulgentius of Ruspe on the Saving Will of God: The Development of a Sixth-Century African Bishop’s Interpretation of I Timothy 2:4 During the Semi-Pelagian Controversy [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009], p. 138); Gottschalk (c.808–c.867) (Victor Genke and Francis X. Gumerlock [eds. & trans.], Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin [Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010], pp. 181; cf. 57-59, 66-67, 111, 120-121, 135, 139, 144-145, 173, 176-177, 179); Jeremias Bastingius (1551-1595) (Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007], p. 67); David J. Engelsma (Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel [Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2014], pp. 148, 170-171); the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia (“Universalism and the Reformed Churches: A Defense of Calvin’s Calvinism” [Youngtown, Tasmania: The Magazine and Literature Committee of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia, 1997], pp. 14-15, 31-32); Richard Bacon (“In this Issue,” The Blue Banner, vol. 9, issue 10-12 [October/December, 2000], pp. 1-2, cf. 18-20); and W. Gary Crampton (“The Myth of Common Grace,” The Trinity Review [March/April, 1987]) do not agree with and/or oppose that exegesis of II Peter 3:9 that proposes an unrealized or unfulfilled desire in God to save the reprobate.
