"not wishing that any should perish,
but that all should reach repentance"
A Reformed Baptist defense demonstrating that God delays final judgment to gather every last one of His elect to repentance — establishing, rather than undermining, the doctrines of grace.
A Contested Text, A Clear Answer
Far from undermining the doctrines of grace, this text positively establishes them: God's sovereign, purposeful will ensures that none of His chosen people perish. The non-Reformed reading — which transforms this verse into a proof of universal salvific desire, resistible grace, or the denial of unconditional election — rests on a systematic decontextualization of the passage and a failure to reckon with the Greek, the epistle's audience, and the broader testimony of Scripture.
The Exegetical Foundation: Who Is Peter Addressing?
The Audience of 2 Peter
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
This is not humanity in general. These are believers — those who have obtained faith, a word (λαχοῦσιν lachousin) that carries the connotation of having received something by divine allotment or lot, not by personal initiative.
To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion.
Peter's audience across both epistles is the elect. Throughout chapter 3, Peter addresses this audience as ἀγαπητοί beloved no fewer than four times (3:1, 8, 14, 17) — a term of covenantal endearment reserved for the people of God.
Peter's Pronoun Distinction in Chapter 3
A careful reader observes that Peter maintains a consistent pronoun distinction throughout the chapter:
| Group | Person | References in Ch. 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Scoffers and mockers | Third person — "they" / "them" | 3:3–5, 16 |
| The beloved addressees | Second person — "you" | 3:1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17 |
The Flow of the Argument
The passage is eschatological, not abstractly soteriological. Peter's concern is to explain the delay of the parousia to a church troubled by scoffers who mock, "Where is the promise of his coming?" (3:4). His answer unfolds in three steps:
The Textual Variant
The Greek of 2 Peter 3:9 and the Nature of God's Will
οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδυτῆτα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.
βουλόμενος — Deliberate, Purposeful Will
The participle μὴ βουλόμενος "not wishing/willing" is a present middle participle of βούλομαι boulomai. BDAG defines it as "to plan with full resolve." Thayer's Lexicon distinguishes it sharply:
The cognate noun βουλή boulē consistently describes God's determined, unalterable purpose throughout Scripture:
| Reference | Usage of βουλή / βούλομαι |
|---|---|
| Acts 2:23 | God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge" by which Christ was delivered up |
| Eph. 1:11 | God working "all things according to the counsel [βουλή] of his will" |
| Heb. 6:17 | God confirms the "unchangeable character of his purpose [βουλή]" by an oath |
| James 1:18 | God "of his own will [βουληθείς] brought us forth" — sovereign regeneration |
| 2 Pet. 3:9 | God's deliberate, purposeful intention regarding the elect |
Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation captures the force of βουλόμενος: "not having it as His considered will that certain should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
The Grammatical Limitation of "Any" and "All"
The participial clause μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι functions as a causal adverbial participle modifying the main verb μακροθυμεῖ ("is patient"). It explains why God is patient toward "you."
The τινας "any" and πάντας "all" are grammatically and contextually bounded by ὑμᾶς "you" in the main clause. The resulting paraphrase:
Identifying and Rebutting Non-Reformed Arguments
Argument 1: "God Wishes All People Without Exception to Be Saved"
First, the "any" and "all" are contextually limited by "you" — Peter's elect addressees, as demonstrated above.
Second, if we grant that βούλομαι here refers to God's sovereign purpose regarding every human without exception, then the Arminian has proved too much: he has proved universalism, not Arminianism. If God's purposeful will is that no person perish, and God's purposeful will cannot be thwarted, then no person will perish. The Arminian must then retreat to the position that God merely wishes salvation for all but cannot accomplish it — which strips βούλομαι of its deliberative, purposeful force and renders God impotent before the human will.
John Samson summarizes: "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."
"'The Lord,' saith he, 'is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.' 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'?"
He concludes: "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."
Argument 2: "The Word 'All' (πάντας) Means Every Human Being Without Exception"
The word πᾶς ("all") routinely means "all within a specified group" or "all without distinction" (i.e., all kinds or classes) rather than "all without exception" (every individual). Scripture provides abundant examples:
Mark 1:5 — "All the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem." Not every single resident, but people from all parts of Judea generally.
John 12:32 — "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." If "all" means every individual, this teaches universalism. Christ draws all kinds of people — Jew and Gentile alike.
Romans 5:18 — "One act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." If the second "all" is universal, Paul teaches universal justification — an absurdity.
1 Corinthians 15:22 — "In Christ shall all be made alive." The "all" is bounded by "in Christ" — those in union with Him, not every human.
Context determines scope. And the context of 2 Peter 3:9 has already identified the "you" as the elect beloved. The "all" who should reach repentance is bounded by this antecedent.
Argument 3: "This Verse Disproves Unconditional Election and Proves Universal Resistible Grace"
The verse proves the exact opposite. If God's patience is specifically directed "toward you" (the elect), and if His purposeful will (βούλομαι — deliberate, purposeful intention) is that none of them perish and all of them reach repentance, then the text teaches irresistible grace — every single one of God's elect will reach repentance. The certainty is absolute. God does not merely offer an opportunity; He ensures the outcome.
Moreover, 2 Peter 3:15 provides a confirming parallel: "Count the patience of our Lord as salvation." God's longsuffering is not mere delay; it is salvation — salvation being accomplished for His people through the means of patience and the gathering work of the gospel.
Argument 4: Provisionist Claims — Leighton Flowers and the Denial of Two Wills
Leighton Flowers and the provisionist movement specifically deny the distinction between God's decretive will and preceptive will, calling it an artificial theological construction that makes God deceptive. Flowers argues: "Under Calvinism the prescriptive will of God is just a disguise for the ulterior decretal will." His ally Ronnie Rogers charges that "the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in… unscrupulous misrepresentation."
The distinction between God's decretive will and His preceptive will is not a Calvinist invention; it is a biblical necessity arising from the plain testimony of Scripture. Consider the following examples, each of which requires two simultaneous levels of divine willing to explain the biblical data:
Genesis 50:20 — Joseph's brothers intended evil; God intended the same event for good. One event, two levels of divine purpose.
Acts 2:23 — Christ was delivered up "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God," yet by "lawless men" who were morally culpable. God decreed the crucifixion while commanding "You shall not murder."
1 Samuel 2:25 — Eli's sons "would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death." God's preceptive will commanded obedience; His decretive will determined their destruction through their disobedience.
These are not Calvinist glosses on Scripture; they are the explicit teaching of Scripture itself. The provisionists, in denying this distinction, are not defending the simplicity of the text — they are refusing to account for the full range of biblical data.
The Reformed Theological Tradition on 2 Peter 3:9
Calvin and the Reformers
Calvin's commentary acknowledges that God's love is such that He "would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost." But Calvin immediately qualifies:
"No mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there 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."
In the Institutes (3.24.16), Calvin further argues that the will to receive sinners 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, let him be asked whether he wills to convert all."
Owen and the Particular Baptist Tradition
The "us" who are the objects of God's patience "are manifestly distinguished from 'some men' in the text, and from scoffers, mocking at the promise of Christ's coming, in the context; and are expressly called beloved."
Gill further observes: "It is not true of all men, that God is not willing that any of them should perish… since many of them do perish in their sins, and do not come to repentance, which would not be the case, if his determining will was otherwise."
On the delay specifically: "For their sakes he is longsuffering to others, and bears with a wicked world… but when the last man that belongs to that number is called, he will quickly descend in flames of fire."
Turretin and the Reformed Scholastics
Francis Turretin provides the most rigorous systematic treatment of the underlying distinctions:
On the decretive and preceptive will: "The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do… the former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled… the latter is often violated by men."
Applying this to the salvation question: "If he wills them to believe decretively and effectively (as with respect to the elect), he also wills them to be saved in this respect and so they are really saved. If he wills only preceptively and approvingly (as with respect to the reprobate upon whom he enjoins faith and repentance), in the same manner also he wills them to be saved (i.e., that he approves of and is pleased with their salvation), but not immediately that he destines it to them."
Edwards and the Complexity of God's Inclinations
Edwards adds profound nuance. He distinguishes God's will "as to that thing absolutely and simply" from God's inclination "with respect to the universality of things." God may hate sin in itself yet "will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality" (§9).
On the reprobate specifically, Edwards makes a remarkable statement: "There is that in God, respecting the acceptance and compliance of sinners, which God knows will never be, and which he has decreed never to cause to be, in which, though it be not just the same with our desiring and wishing for that which will never come to pass, yet there is nothing wanting but what would imply imperfection in the case. There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men" (§13).
God does not have a frustrated wish; He has, in the perfection of His nature, everything that corresponds to what is good in human compassion — without the imperfection of an unfulfilled desire.
Sproul, White, and MacArthur in the Modern Era
Key Theological Distinctions Defended
The Decretive Will and Preceptive Will
voluntas decreti vs. voluntas signi
This distinction is not a convenient escape hatch invented to handle difficult texts. It is a necessary theological category demanded by the full scope of biblical revelation.
"The decretive will of God is that will of God by which He purposes or decrees whatever shall come to pass… The [preceptive will] is the rule of life which God has laid down for His moral creatures. The former is always accomplished, while the latter is often disobeyed."
Berkhof adds a critical observation that cuts against both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist: "The decretive and preceptive will of God do not conflict in the sense that according to the former He does not, and according to the latter He does, will the salvation of every individual with a positive volition. Even according to the decretive will God takes no pleasure in sin; and even according to the preceptive will He does not will the salvation of every individual with a positive volition."
The Antecedent and Consequent Will — Reformed vs. Arminian Usage
Turretin and the Reformed scholastics retained the antecedent/consequent will distinction in a carefully qualified sense while sharply rejecting the Arminian perversion of it.
| Arminian Usage | Reformed Usage |
|---|---|
| God antecedently wills salvation of all; consequently wills only some, depending on foreseen human choices | Antecedent will = an abstraction: God's approval of a thing in itself (life rather than death, holiness rather than sin) |
| Introduces mutability: "no place for the consequent will until the antecedent is first rescinded" | Consequent will = God's actual decree taking into account all things He purposes to accomplish for His glory |
| Attributes "folly and impotence" to God — a serious intent that is not performed | No mutability; the consequent decree is immutable from eternity |
| "Overthrows the eternal election of God" by founding it on the human will | Election is unconditional, grounded entirely in the will of God alone |
"All Without Distinction" Versus "All Without Exception"
Turretin articulates the hermeneutical principle that governs the Reformed reading of universalistic language: the universal proposition regarding salvation is "to be understood not so much of the singulars of the genera as of the genera of the singulars" — that is, all classes of people, not every individual (Institutes, Vol. 1, p. 224).
When Paul instructs prayer "for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions" and then states God "desires all people to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:1–4), the "all" means people from every rank and station — including kings and rulers, whom the early church might have thought beyond the scope of the gospel.
Likewise in 2 Peter 3:9, "all" means all of the elect from every nation, tribe, and tongue whom God is patiently gathering before the end.
How 2 Peter 3:9 Actually Supports the Doctrines of Grace
…count the patience of our Lord as salvation.
Answering the "Contradiction" Charge Directly
The Objection Stated at Full Force
"God cannot both predestine the reprobate to destruction and genuinely not wish them to perish. If God decrees reprobation, then He does wish them to perish. The 'two wills' framework is philosophical double-talk — one will is real (the decree), and the other is a fiction (the supposed desire). Calvinism makes God deceptive."
Jerry Walls presses the charge directly: "God's refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral."
The Reformed Answer — Four Levels
The Reformed tradition answers this objection at multiple levels. The confessional Reformed Baptist is equipped to deploy them all.
The Confessional Standard: The 1689 London Baptist Confession
The Patience of the Lord Is the Salvation of the Elect
The Lord delays judgment not because He is paralyzed by a wish He cannot fulfill but because He is accomplishing His eternal purpose — gathering every last one of His chosen ones to repentance through the ordinary means of the gospel carried across the centuries and the nations. When the last elect sinner has been brought home, the patience will end and the Day of the Lord will come like a thief (3:10).
The non-Reformed reading requires decontextualizing the verse from its audience, stripping βούλομαι of its deliberative force, ignoring the grammatical connection between "you" and "any/all," and ultimately attributing to God a sovereign purpose that is perpetually thwarted by human autonomy — a purpose that, on their own premises, would entail universalism if it were truly God's purposeful will.
The Reformed reading, by contrast, honors the grammar, the context, the epistle's audience, the Greek, and the analogy of Scripture. It confesses what 2 Peter 3:15 confirms: the patience of our Lord is salvation — not a wish for salvation, not an opportunity for salvation, but salvation itself, sovereignly and certainly accomplished for every single person for whom Christ died.
…count the patience of our Lord as salvation.