When I was a small boy growing up in Chester, England, I wanted with all my heart to be a guard outside Buckingham Palace.

This was no passing fancy. I had the uniform, made to my size. I had the belt, the tall black bearskin hat, which as a boy I called a Busby, and a real rifle, unloaded, but a real rifle all the same. And I would stand for hours outside our house, perfectly still, refusing to move a single muscle. The other boys in the neighborhood would come out and ask if I wanted to play. I would not so much as blink. I had seen the real guards outside the palace, and they did not move for anyone. Children could shout, sing, and pull faces, and those guards stood like statues. So I did the same.

Every year we visited my uncle in London, and the highlight for me was always the same. My parents and I would take the Underground across the city to reach the palace in good time for the Changing of the Guard ceremony, and I would stand with my face pressed between the palace railings, trying to get as close as I could to the action, studying every movement of the guards.

One year an American tourist who had missed the Changing of the Guard asked if she could take my photograph. I looked the part. I am, to this day, in someone’s photo album in America, a small English boy at rigid attention.

And I had a secret hope. I used to imagine that the Queen might glance out of one of those tall windows, see this devoted little guard standing there outside the palace, and be charmed. I imagined her summoning a member of staff and saying, “Would you bring that little boy and his parents in? I should like to have tea with them.”

I genuinely hoped for it. I knew when she was in residence, because the Royal Standard flag would fly over the palace. She was in there somewhere, just beyond the glass. Surely all my effort would be noticed.

It never happened. Of course it never happened.

Years later, as a teenager who had traded the dream of being a guard for the dream of playing football, I read in the Chester newspaper that the Queen was going to visit my own city. The paper printed the exact route her car would take the next morning. I knew Chester like the back of my hand, and I worked out that if I climbed a particular lamp post on a certain street, I would be above the crowds with a clear view of Her Majesty as she passed.

The next morning I climbed up and waited. And as her car came slowly down the street, for one brief moment, her eyes and mine met. I gave a small nod. And the Queen, just for a moment, nodded back.

That was it. That was the whole of my relationship with royalty: a nod from a passing car. She never wrote to me about it. It did not feature in the royal records. But for a boy who had once stood for hours in a miniature uniform, it was a moment.

I tell that story because it captures something the apostle Paul says in one of the most important verses in the whole Bible. Writing about why God saves the people He saves, Paul concludes: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” – Romans 9:16

Not on human will. Not on human exertion. Not on the man who wills, nor on the man who runs.

All my striving as a boy could never have made me royalty. I could stand still for a hundred years. I could wear the uniform, learn every detail, climb every lamp post in England, and still none of it could bridge the gap between a subject on the street and a son in the royal house. The most that striving could ever earn me was a nod from a passing car. Adoption into the family was never on offer to my effort, however sincere, however devoted.

But if I leave the picture there, I have told you only half the truth, and the smaller half at that. For at least the boy in the uniform admired his Queen. He loved the Crown and longed to serve it.

That is not what the Bible says we were.

Scripture does not describe us as wistful subjects standing politely on the street, hoping to be noticed. It describes us as rebels. We were “enemies” of God (Romans 5:10). The mind set on the flesh “is hostile to God” (Romans 8:7). We did not tip our hats to the King and hope for an invitation. We took up arms against His throne and did everything in our power to unseat Him from it.

That is what makes the doctrine of election so staggering.

If we were merely admiring subjects who failed to earn our way in, grace would be wonderful enough. But we were traitors to the Crown, and the King reached down not to reward our striving, but to rescue us from our rebellion. He did not adopt us because we wanted in. He adopted us while we were doing all we could to dethrone Him.

Yet this mercy was not cheap. The King did not pretend our treason did not matter. The Son of God bore the judgment His people deserved, rose from the dead, and brought rebels home by blood-bought grace.

And here is the gospel, better than anything my boyhood imagination could invent. The King of all kings, entirely of His own free mercy, has taken rebels who hated Him and made them His own children. He did not wait to be impressed. He did not respond to our effort, because our effort was all bent against Him. He set His love on His people before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, “not because of works but because of him who calls” (Romans 9:11).

And He did not merely permit us to squeak into a back room of the palace. He brings us near, names us as His own, and bids us “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16).

The boy in the guard’s uniform could only hope to be noticed. The rebel, by sovereign grace, is welcomed home as a son.

If you are in Christ, you did not earn your way in, and you never could have. You did not even want in until He made you willing. You were adopted by sheer sovereign mercy while you were still in rebellion against the throne, and that is not cold doctrine. It is the warmest news in the world.

The believer’s place in the family does not rest on the strength of human striving, which rises and falls. It rests on the unchanging will of the God who has mercy on whom He has mercy, granting repentance and faith to those He saves.

I never did have tea with the Queen. But by grace alone, and not by any effort of mine, the King I once resisted has adopted me as His own, brought me near through Christ, and welcomes me to dine at His table.

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” – Romans 9:16

Some time back I posted a video of a conversation where seemingly unannounced, a young man walked up to Paul Washer asking him if he could explain the doctrine of election (with another friend standing by with a video camera). The result was a very poor quality audio recording but with the transcript provided, it is fairly easy to follow.

I spent some time writing out a full transcript of the conversation. There are some people who for some reason find the viewing of videos to be problematic. I hope adding the transcript below serves you.

So, here’s the video once again, this time with the transcript (which starts after the initial question has been asked). God bless, John

What it all comes down to is this. You have to answer one question: is man radically depraved?

That’s the only question you have to ask. Because if he is truly dead in his sin, if he truly hates God, if all men are equally evil, and they are, then the question is, how are you standing here right now believing God while some of your friends who are more moral than you still hate Him?

What happened?

If you say you opened up your heart, I’ll say, “no you didn’t” because the Bible says God opened up Lydia’s heart.

If you say, “well I repented.” Well, repentance is an evangelical grace in all the confessions. That means it comes from God as a gift.

If you say, “well I believe.” Ephesians 2. It is also a gift.

Questioner: (I know the Bible says that no man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. I know that well. My question is, “is the offer of salvation for all men or did God sit back in eternity and say, ‘its for you, you, you and you, and you, you, you, you are going to go to hell”?)

See, first of all, your problem is this: let’s say there’s no election. None. Ok. Let’s just start fresh and say there’s no election. Alright.. now, let’s say that men really are radically depraved and no man can come to God unless God draws him. So God comes down to every man and says “Anyone who will bow the knee to Me, anyone who will accept my Son as their Savior will be saved.” Since every man is radically depraved, they all hate God, they all blaspheme Him, turn around walk away and go to hell. The whole world goes to hell. Is that God’s fault?

(No.)

Alright, let’s say that really is the reality. Let’s say the Bible is true and that men hate God that much. So, who is going to be saved? Absolutely no one!

And if God saved no one because everyone is evil and rejects Him, is God wrong in doing that?

No, so that is what you’ve got without election – you’ve got the whole world hating God and going to hell.

That’s it…. and the other option is this:

Among these evil men, for His own glory and to demonstrate His own kindness before the foundation of the world He chooses a group of men out of there to demonstrate His glory in them. Is that wrong?

Did He rip the other men off?

What did He do?

You’ve got two choices: God saves a group of people by His own sovereignty or everybody goes to hell. Everybody!

Because men are that evil.

See, what you need to realize is that if God, right now, were to throw open the door of hell and say “everyone who wants out of hell, the only thing you have to do is bow your knee to Me and recognize My Lordship.” they’ll slam the door and stay in hell.

See what you don’t realize because of the humanistic Christianity in America, you don’t realize that men are really evil. They really ARE evil.

I’ll give you an example.

Have any of you seen Lord of the Rings?

Saruman makes these orcs, they come out of the ground evil. EVIL.

Alright, Aragon, all the heroes in the movie, slaughter them like they were insects. Slaughter them. And every time an orc gets killed, what do you do…

Yay! (Cheer)

Why?

Because those orcs really are evil. They are evil.

There’s your problem. You don’t think men are.

Men really are evil. Men really deserve hell. They really do.

(I believe that)

We talk about the doctrine of inability – that men cannot come to God. Jesus said that. Alright, men CANNOT come to God.

Now, if you say, “if men can’t come to God then how can God judge them? Its like judging a blind man because he can’t read. If men can’t come to God then man is not a culprit, he’s a victim.”

But here’s what you have to understand. Men cannot come to God because they WILL not come to God and they will not come to God because they hate Him… and therefore they are responsible.

Men are evil. God is good.

So, men hate God, they hate His law, they hate everything about Him. OK.

It says of Joseph’s brothers: they could not speak to him peaceably.

Now they spoke Aramaic. Why couldn’t they speak to him peaceably?

They could not because they hated him.

Alright, that’s why no man will ever come to God.

If God comes down and says, “Alright, everybody make their choice.”

No one is coming to God.

Why?

They hate Him.

And that is why they are judged, for their moral inability. Their inability is moral. They really hate God.

So, you’ve got the whole human race, every one of them is fallen, everyone of them hates God. God comes down to them and says, “who wants to be saved?”

Everybody blasphemes the name of God, walks into hell and slams the door. That’s what you’ve got. Because men really are evil.

and if out of that God says, “For My own glory, I am going to redeem a people and give them to My Son, by My own choice and by My own Sovereign election. He’s done wrong to no one.

Now how does He save them?

Here’s a question: Are you spiritually dead prior to salvation?

(Yes)

Well then, how did you come to Christ?

If you are spiritually blind, how do you now see Him?

(He draws me unto Him)

But you’re a dead man.

If some of it has to do with you, you’re a dead man.

If God calls your name, you hate Him. You’re not going to come, you’re going to run farther away from Him.

That is why in all.. now listen very carefully… in all the Christian confessions – the old Christian confessions, in the Reformation, early Baptist confessions, … you have been raised on this” ‘If you believe in Jesus you can be born again.’

ALL the early Baptist confessions say you must be born again in order to believe in Jesus.

That’s the difference.

Because if I tell a dead man, “Look, you’re dead, but there’s a hospital over here, where they can put some electrodes on you – so get up and follow me over to the hospital.”

Its nonsensical. He’s dead.

If he can get up he doesn’t need to go to the hospital.

So when Jesus looked at Lazarus and said, “Lazarus come forth” – there’s a problem – Lazarus is dead.

How does he hear the command?

The command was not only to be given, the moment the command is given, Lazarus must be resurrected to be able to even hear the command and respond.

That’s why you probably heard the Gospel for many years, and you’re sitting there and you didn’t care, it’s no big deal, maybe you made a profession of faith.. nothing.

And then one day, the Gospel is preached and wooosh – the blinders are taken off and not only that but you want Him.

Some people say, “well, what God does is He draws us to a certain point and then gives us a choice.”

There’s a problem. If God only illuminates the mind of the sinner then the more the sinner sees God, the more he’s going to hate Him.

So He not only illuminates the mind, He changes the heart.

With a new heart, for the first time you want Jesus and say, “I love Him and am irresistibly drawn to Him. I want Him more than anything.”

That’s what it is.

2 Peter 3:9, without doubt, is the single most popular verse used by Arminians/synergists to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none. The meaning of the verse is simply assumed, and because of this, no time is taken to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. I have to admit that I made this exact assumption for the first couple of decades of my Christian life, even as a pastor. I was a synergist and the synergistic interpretation seemed obviously correct to me. Because of this, I saw no need to study the text in order to examine my traditions. In this regard, it’s been well said, “those most enslaved to tradition are those who think they do not have any.”

The Arminian/Synergist Interpretation

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He self identifies as an Arminian. Insisting that 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaches much the same truth as 2 Peter 3:9, Olson writes these words,

“Above all Arminians insist that God is a good and loving God, who truly desires the salvation of all people. Note 1 Timothy 2:3–4: “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; and 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Arminians regard these and similar passages of Scripture as clearly and unequivocally pointing to God’s universal desire for salvation of every person.” 1

But is this interpretation correct? To answer this question, let us begin by reading the verse in its context, beginning with the first portion of the chapter:

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.”

Exegesis of the Text

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 that the verse in question (v.9) speaks of the wishing or willing of God (depending on the translation utilized). “God is not willing” for something to happen.

Theologians have long recognized that there are three ways in which the will of God is spoken of in Scripture.

There is what is called the Sovereign Decretive Will, sometimes referred to as the Sovereign efficacious will. This refers to the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is something that always happens. Nothing can thwart this will (Isa 46:9-11). This will is also known as the secret will of God because it is hidden to us until it comes to pass in the course of time.

Secondly, there is the Preceptive Will of God. This is God’s will revealed in His law, commandments or precepts. As the course of human history reveals, people have the power to break these commandments and do so every day. It is important to state that although men have the power to break these precepts, they do not have the right to do so. His creatures are under obligation to obey all His commandments and will face His judgment for not doing so.

Thirdly, we have God’s Will of Disposition. Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient.”2

There are many in the Reformed community who look at 2 Peter 3:9 and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. And yet, to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell. John Frame expresses this view as he writes, “God’s will is sometimes thwarted because he wills it to be, because he has given one of his desires precedence over another.” And again, “God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends.”3

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I am convinced of a different view.

What follows is a lengthy quote by Dr. R.C. Sproul. He writes, “Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, ‘God is not willing that any should perish,’ and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is possible and attractive to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”4

I find Dr. Sproul’s logic here convincing. So let’s ask a further question of the text, namely, Who are the “all” and who are the “us”? Are these references to all people everywhere on planet earth?

When we follow the pronouns of the passage the answer becomes immediately apparent. The people Peter is addressing are clearly identified. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is vitally important.

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. When a school teacher is in a classroom and is about to start the class and asks the students, “Are we all here?”, he is not asking if everyone on planet Earth is in the classroom. Because of the context in which the question is framed, we understand that he is referring to all within a certain class or type; in this case, all the students in the class. To say that he is referring to all people on planet earth would be to grossly misinterpret the intended meaning of his question. So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without exception, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group of people and not to all of mankind. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…” (2 Peter 3:1)

According to the first chapter in this epistle, this group had “received a faith of the same kind as ours” by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1, NASB).

Can we be even more specific about who this group is? Indeed, yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first letter makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 begins this way, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…”

As we read through the passage in 2 Peter 3, there is nothing that would indicate that the audience changes in any way. The same group is being addressed throughout. So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “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.” (emphasis mine)

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen. Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell.

As has been established, if God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, as Dr. James White asserts, “Peter limits his use of ‘all’ and ‘any’ to a specific audience, ‘you.’”5 In other words, the “any” that God wills not to perish is 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.

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. The elect are not justified by election, but by putting their faith in Christ. If a person is to be saved they must come to Christ in repentance and faith. The doctrine of Sovereign Election simply explains who will do so. The elect will. Jesus assured us of this when He said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37) and is confirmed by the testimony of Luke in Acts 13:48 when he observed that “… all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” All who had the appointment, made the appointment.

Conclusion

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith. Therefore, Christ has not yet returned to the Earth in power and glory. Christ’s second coming may seem to be delayed but God is being very longsuffering toward us (you, beloved) not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. Rather than denying election, 2 Peter 3:9, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it. The Lord Jesus will return, but only after all His elect, beloved people have come to repentance.

Bibliography

1. Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism electronic [Kindle] edition, p. 68
2. R. C. Sproul Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Tyndale Elevate; Illustrated edition (1998)
3. John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterean & Reformed, 2001), 113
4. James White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Calvary Press; Revised edition (May 15, 2000)
5. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, Tyndale Elevate (April 6, 2021)