Not Willing That Any Should Perish
I was pulled aside by one of my friends the other day and told “I have a bone to pick with you”. I asked “about what” and my friend began to tell me how I had made God out to be a liar. This rebuke really bothered me and I wanted to know what he thought I had done or said to make God out to be a liar. (This, of course, I would never hold to even if something I said was blatantly in error in regards to the Word of God. In Romans 3:4 Paul makes this proclamation, “Indeed let God be true and every man a liar”. So, while men including myself certainly can and do misrepresent the Word of God, it is man who is the liar, never God). He told me that God was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, referring to 2 Peter 3:9. He made this comment to challenge my Calvinistic position on God’s election and how God had not chosen all for salvation. When I tried to defend my position based on this passage he suddenly had to leave, this had been one of those drive by comments that my friends like to do to me from time to time, so we were never able to fully discuss the matter. So I hope this makes for an interesting posting.
Let us begin with the passage, 2 peter 3:3-9:
2 Peter 3:3-9
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV
In this short epistle Peter expresses to his audience three times that he is reminding them of the divine power given to them through the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 1:3), that they have been given everything for life and godliness through this knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 1:4), that they should display fruitful growth in faith (2 pet 1:5-11), the trustworthiness of the prophetic word given to them (2Pet 1:16-21), and that they remain mindful of the words the holy prophets of old and the apostles of Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:1-2). He follows up this last reminder by warning them that mockers who are slaves to their own lusts will come with mocking and saying “where is the promise of His coming”? They maintain that things have gone on as they always have from time out of mind and that there is now no indication that the Lord will come. The New Geneva Study Bible notes conclude, “from the delay in Christ’s return, the false teachers wrongly concluded that He would never return to judge them. Peter portrays their scoffing as ironic evidence that the last days are indeed present.” Peter says in verse 5 through 7 that what has escaped their notice is that the world of evil doers was judged and destroyed through the flood of Noah, and that today, by the Word of the Lord the earth is “reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Just as the flood came in the days of Noah and surprised those living at that time and swept them away to their destruction, so too, it will be for those who question Christ’s coming, they will be surprised, unprepared and horrified at their day of reckoning.
Notice that when Peter is addressing the mockers and scoffers he addresses them as “their” in verse 3 and “they” in verse 5 but in verse 8 Peter turns his comments to a different audience and addresses them as beloved. Now he is writing to those whom in chapter one verse one he describes as having obtained like precious faith with him, and reminds them not to be like the mockers and false teachers and let this fact escape their notice, “that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Though this passage is sometimes used to assert that in prophecy the usage of one day is associated with a thousand years of time, I would disagree with this view based upon the latter phrase of “a thousand years is one day”. I think it refers to God’s sovereignty over time and that what may be considered long or short relative to our position in time, it is not that way with God. God does not stand with us in our temporal position in time, He is atemporal, over and above time, and not limited to its restraints.
Peter uses this argument to contrast the mockers view of time and their denial of the coming judgment and God’s providential promise of judgment on the wicked. He assures his readers that God is not slow as the mockers count slowness, God has made a promise, a decree, and He will indeed come, but is “longsuffering towards us”. This phrase “longsuffering towards us” sets the target for whom the following statement is intended for. The “us” here refers to those whom Peter is writing to, current believers and future believers, not the mockers and false teachers he has described earlier. Peter is giving the reason why God is waiting to come in judgment. It is because of them, those who now have like precious faith and those that will come to faith, that He delays His coming. The following statement, “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” needs to be qualified. Any of who and all of who, needs to be answered. Rather than a universal definition of any and all, which seems to contradict the prior promise of judgment on the false teachers and mockers and the change of subject Peter makes in verse 8, it would fit the context much better to point the reference of any and all to the “us” that God is longsuffering towards. There is a reason that God delays and it would be foolish to say that God is patient towards the false teachers and mockers that Peter describes in chapter 2 verse 12 as brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed. The whole point of the preceding verses in chapter 3 is that the wicked will not escape God’s righteous judgment, it is as sure as if it had already happened. Any mercy that Peter mentions is directed at his immediate readers and those who are yet to join them in true faith.
Paul in Romans 9:22-24 makes a similar statement about God’s longsuffering and states:
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
NKJV
God delays his judgment of the wicked that were prepared for destruction that He might show His mercy on His elect that were prepared for glory. God is waiting and patiently enduring the insults of those who despise Him so that He may be merciful to all who are chosen and will come to Him. This is why the world has not already come to an end in judgment, God is awaiting the coming of the faithful, those in the world who have yet to come and those who are yet to be born who will come to Him. John 6:39 states: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.” “Emmanuel will come, He will take His power and reign, when the full complement of His people has been redeemed from every tribe, tongue, people and nation.”1
Chosen for Life The Case for Divine Election. Sam Storm (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books 2007)
197
Clay
Neiswonger
Doug
Josh Hicks
Clay
These two videos helped me a lot when I started looking into this subject:
Video 1
Video 2
Comment by Lane Chaplin — April 18, 2008 @ 6:30 pm |
Great article, Clay! Keep up the good work!
JM
Comment by JM — May 15, 2008 @ 10:20 pm |
[...] 10. Douglas Neiswonger reconciles 2 Peter 3:3-9 with the doctrine of election. [...]
Pingback by Caffeinated Thoughts - » Twenty Items of Interest (v. 15) — June 21, 2008 @ 2:49 pm |
Clay,
It’s not often one reads a sound contextual approach to 2 Pet.3:9. If it was not for the fact that God had set His love upon me in accordance with Rom. 9 and other portions of scripture, knowing the propensities of sin still within me, I know one thing- I would never, ever have chosen Him. How good it is that God is patient to us-ward!
Rejoicing in Christ,
Howard
Comment by Howard — February 9, 2009 @ 1:47 pm |
Thanks for this Clay,
I came back to re-read it because it is very timely for me right now.
Doug
Comment by Doug — March 18, 2009 @ 9:24 am |
Doug,
I am honored that you have even read it once, that you came back is a double honor. Your encouragement is timely for me.
Thanks Doug
Comment by Clay — March 18, 2009 @ 6:06 pm |
Ahhh, you Calvinists. No one is predestined to hell. Yes predestination is spoken of in the Bible, I don’t deny that, but it ISN’T what the Calvinist says it is. Your friend is right…God would be a liar. Why would I say that? Simple read this:
1 Tim. 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– [2] for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. [3] This is good, and pleases God our Savior, [4] who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all men–the testimony given in its proper time.
Does God want ALL men to be saved or not? If the Calvinistic view of predestination is true and God chooses who will be saved and who won’t and He chooses many not to be saved then that passage is a bald-faced lie.
Concerning the passage in 2 Peter 3:9 – why would God be patient with someone who has no choice but to be lost? He would be being patient with Himself, since He makes all the decisions. And of course it would mean He doesn’t really want everyone to come to repentance. By saying that He’s waiting for those He’s predestined to be saved is false, because it would obviously have to “stop” somewhere & Luke 19:10 says He comes to seek & to save that which is lost. EVERYONE is lost, so He searches for everyone. So by that very fact, we know that the Calvinistic view of predestination is false.
Romans 9:30-32
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; [31] but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. [32] Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
Notice Paul doesn’t say because God didn’t choose them. He said because they pursued it the wrong way. This goes back to who is he speaking to and why? He is speaking to Jews and us about the Jews. But why? Simple, the Jews were arrogant, they believed that they were sons of Abraham and that guaranteed them a place in heaven. They rejected their Messiah, but thought they were on their way to heaven because theirs was the adoption as sons:
Romans 9:2-5
I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. [3] For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, [4] the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. [5] Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
They claimed to be Predestined to heaven. If anything this all shows that predestination is false. But let’s dig deeper:
Romans 9:10-15
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. [11] Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: [12] not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” [13] Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
[14] What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! [15] For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
See, in Jewish culture the first born was the heir, the second born had no claim on anything. So under Jewish culture Esau should have been the chosen one, the direct line to Christ, but God is saying, it doesn’t matter what man thinks. He choose Jacob even though he should have not been the heir. Now God could have just made Jacob be born first, but He did it this way to make a point. And the point was missed on the Jews. They claimed salvation by virtue of their birth as Jews and God is saying that isn’t enough, He chose how people would be saved; not based on anything human (birth, etc…) but rather on their willingness to follow Him by faith. The Jews refused and they were lost, yet the dirty heathen Gentiles believed and were saved.
This was outrageous to the Jews the thought that God would deal lovingly with those heathens and shut them out! No way! Paul is telling them to wake up, that is exactly what is happening. God chose all those who were willing to place their faith in Jesus Christ His Son, not those who had any claim to anything by birth.
Now look at this:
Romans 10:1
Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
Why would Paul bother to pray for people God had rejected and didn’t want to save? He wouldn’t, but he prayed for their salvation because it was possible if they would only turn from their arrogance and accept Jesus by faith.
But let me go back to Jacob and Esau for a moment. People get hung up on the fact that God says He hated Esau. In the Law it was wrong for a Jew to hate anyone. We see that when Jesus tells those around Him that anyone who hates his brother is guilty of murder. So we know that the word hate as used here about Esau couldn’t mean what we think of as hate and it doesn’t. It means rejected. God rejected Esau’s birthright and gave it to Jacob who didn’t deserve it, who didn’t earn it, etc… Just so you know I am not just nuts look at this:
Genesis 33:8-9
Esau asked, “What do you mean by all these droves I met?”
“To find favor in your eyes, my lord,” he said.
[9] But Esau said, “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.”
“I already have plenty.” Esau was blessed, does that sound like a person God hated? Now look at this:
Deut. 2:22
The Lord had done the same for the descendants of Esau, who lived in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites from before them. They drove them out and have lived in their place to this day.
Notice that God destroyed the Horites so that the descendants of Esau could have the land. Again does that sound like someone God hated? This is my point about taking the Bible as a whole, otherwise you get the wrong idea about certain passages. So we know God didn’t really hate Esau, but He rejected him as the line of the Messiah and gave that honor to Jacob who by law should not have had it.
Ephes. 1:3-6
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. [4] For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love [5] he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
He predestined us to be adopted as his sons… Okay, does that say He didn’t predestine some people? No, it just says that He wanted us to be adopted as sons. Go back and look at what Paul said about the Jews: theirs is the adoption as sons… Yet they were lost because of their unbelief. Do you see my point? God adopted them and yet they were lost, God wanted all of us to be adopted as sons through FAITH in Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t happen to many in fact most people, not because God doesn’t want it but rather because they choose not to place their faith in Jesus Christ. Yet God predestined them to be adopted, meaning He provided and planned for them to accept but most don’t. Nowhere does this say or even imply that only some people were predestined to be saved.
I won’t quote all of John 6, but it is much the same as Romans 9. Let me quote just a small part:
John 6:38-51
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. [39] And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. [40] For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
[41] At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
[43] “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. [44] “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. [46] No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. [47] I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. [50] But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. [51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
No one can come to me unless the Father draws them… Again that is really good news. Jesus is saying, like Paul that man can’t do this on their own. No one seeks God on their own, no one would care one way or the other, unless God drew them, convicted them and spoke to their hearts. Now why would God draw someone just to have them respond and then refuse them salvation? He wouldn’t. And yet God says that His desire is for ALL men to come to repentance, which means He would have to draw all men, and again if He draws them He certainly won’t refuse them.
John 12:30-33
Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. [31] Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. [32] But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” [33] He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
Are you seeing a pattern? God must draw us for us to be saved, He wants all men to be saved, therefore He draws all men. He predestined us to be saved through faith in His Son, and that can only happen if He draws us and allows us to respond! This all goes hand in glove.
Let me quote just a short part of Romans 8:
Romans 8:28-30
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. [29] For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30] And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Here predestination if mentioned again, but does it say that only some people have the possibility to be saved? No, what it says is that God knew before He even created us who would and who would not respond to His open invitation of salvation by placing their faith in His Son. So He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son. The verse about calling, justifying and glorifying, just show what happens to those who did respond through faith. Again it does not imply or say that only a few were chosen, but of the few who chose to place their faith in Jesus Christ, God the Father prepared them and their hearts.
If any man wants to be predestined it is up to them; just place their faith in Jesus Christ and they will be predestined. That might sound backwards, but it isn’t.
Also, Calvinists would have that since God predestined some to hell for His glory, so that means that judgment has already occurred. Hebrews 9:27 that judgment doesn’t occur until AFTER death. Also, hell wasn’t even created for man. It was created for satan & his angels. (Matthew 25:41)
Okay, I’m sorry to have gone on about this, but the argument between predestionation & free-will is kinda my “thing.”
I’d love to hear any refutes you have to anything I say!
Erica
Comment by Erica — September 24, 2009 @ 3:09 pm |
Erica,
Please forgive me, but I doubt I am going to exhaustively respond to all that you’ve cited and written. I hope this will not displease you and that if you respond with more I may not have the time to respond back immediately or for a long long time.
Suffice it to say that I believe the Scriptures do not contradict themselves in any manner. I even disagree with many of my Reformed friends when they say there are “apparent” contradictions. I believe the Scripture agrees with itself, appears always to agree with itself, etc. What I don’t believe is that finite men are always able to grasp the weaved cohesion of Scripture. In such instances, Christians are duty-bound to simply believe that God is telling the truth via His Word. Cop out? Maybe. True? Absolutely. One of the most important hermeneutical principles involved in biblical interpretation is the Analogy of Scripture (some call it the Analogy of Faith). I’m sure you’re familiar with it, so I’ll keep my definition brief. The Analogy of Scripture is comprised with a few assertions:
1. Scripture is to be interpreted with Scripture.
2. Scripture agrees with itself.
So with this two principles, when we get to a seemingly obscure passage that is more difficult to understand than others, we should not formulate doctrine from it alone, but interpret said passage in light of other passages that are abundantly clear concerning the same subject matter. God is not at odds with Himself. He does not “desire” that which He has not decreed. Thus, naturally, since you disagree with the fundamental principle of the Reformed Faith (i.e. that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass), then you’ll automatically read your cited passages with a certain lens which says, “This cannot mean that God has elected some to salvation at the expense of others.” Unfortunately, I believe that for our discussion to get anywhere concerning the passages you’ve quoted, we’d have to establish, or disestablish if you believe that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. Nevertheless, allow me to take a brief crack at it.
1st, God cannot be a liar. It’s impossible for Him to lie since He is the very definer of Truth. What is truth? Whatever God says it. “Let God be true and every man a liar.” As for the example of God being a liar if the Calvinistic definition of predestination is right, well that doesn’t follow. The passages you’ve quoted (and I don’t have the time to deal with each of them) do not militate against the biblical definition of predestination. Concerning 1 Timoth 2:1-6, you asked, “Does God want ALL men to be saved or not?” That depends. What do you mean by your usage of all? If by all you mean “all men without exception,” then “No.” What God wants, God gets. He is not imcompetent or needy. What He has decreed will come to pass. Here are are few passages that teach this, then I’ll very briefly discuss the context of 1 Timothy 2.
It does not follow that God desires something that He does not intend. What He wants He accomplishes … and He does so perfectly.Let’s look at the context of the 1 Timothy 2
1 Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Now, if God wants us to pray for “all men,” and you think this means all people without exception, then you have a responsibility of praying for everyone who exists. I don’t believe, then, that the word all can mean all people without exception. Just as the term “world” doesn’t always mean “all people in the world without exception.” Consider also Chapter 1 where the Apostle also talks about “kinds” of people there: “Murderers, manslayers, whoremongers, etc.” Then, following in Chapter 2, he says, “Therefore pray for all men,” which I believe means all kinds of men. The higher ups, the lower downs, etc.
Concerning 2 Peter 3:9 you asked, “[W]hy would God be patient with someone who has no choice but to be lost?” He’s not. His patience is toward His Elect, which is to whom the letter is addressed in the first place:
Paul has already established an “us/ye” and “them” opposition. So in v. 9 there are few things. He says God is patient toward “us,” meaning Christians. Also note that God is not slack concerning his “promise.” Will God *keep* His promise? Sure. And what promise is that? To save His people. And since He wants to do that, He will be patient in fulfilling it, so that not one of His people will perish before they come to faith. As for your allusion to Luke, again, it’s a hermeneutical disagreement we have. Jesus is making the point that His mission is to seek and save that which is lost. Will He accomplish that? Absolutely. Will everyone without exception be saved? No. If not, then according to your understanding Christ will have failed in His endeavor, because if He’s seeking to save that which was lost, and that which was lost here means all people without exception, then Christ has failed. But Christ hasn’t failed, nor will He. He will accomplish His mission to “save His people from their sins” Matthew 1:21.
I don’t understand the purpose of your allusion to Romans 9:30-32. I have no disagreement with the fact that the Jews pursued God in the wrong manner. So? That doesn’t militate against the Calvinistic position whatsoever. I also don’t understand in your allusion to Romans 9:2-5 how it pertains to the Jews’ supposed claim to predestination? As for your notes on Romans 9:10-15, I believe God chose to save men by the mere good pleasure of His will (Eph.1), and based on His good pleasure, He chose certain sinners to be saved and made them willing in the day of salvation. I do not disagree that unbelief condemns and that genuine saving faith is the empty instrument by which God saves a man. I merely believe that the only way a man can/will believe is by virtue of the means of God’s regeneration of their dead hearts.
Romans 10:1 – You asked “Why would Paul bother to pray for people God had rejected and didn’t want to save?”
Paul is talking about a whole nation of people. As for individual people within that larger group He would never assert knowledge of who would reject and who wouldn’t. He simply prays that God *would* save them. As for God hating Esau, I do very much believe it means hatred. As men we are *not* to hate, but that’s because our hatred is tainted with sin. God is not tainted by sin. He may hate as he sees fit and He is perfectly justified in doing so and is breaking no Law of His own when He does so.
In your notes concerning Eph. 1 God wants something but just can’t feasibly attain it. Yet, we can see by many passages that God gets what He wants, and never *doesn’t* get what He wants. He accomplishes all His good pleasure, and in the same chapter of Ephesians it says that He works all things according to the counsel of His will. Well, does He, or doesn’t He?
In John 6, in order to be consistent and intellectually honest you have to either believe that God has chosen some and not others, or that salvation is universally given to all men without exception. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” It also says (v. 39) that Christ will lose *none* of whom the Father has given Him. Later it says that Whomever the Father draws that He *will* raise him up on the last day. So we have:
1. v. 37 – a people that the Father has given to Christ
2. v. 37 – a declaration that said people whom the Father has given to Christ *will* come to Him
3. v. 37 – a declaration that said people who come to Christ *will not* be cast out
4. v. 39 – that none of said people who come to Christ will be *lost*
5. v. 44 – that whoever is drawn by the Father *will* be raised up on that last day (to eternal life)
I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t equate to a needy god who *hopes* people will accept him, but his hands are tied until they exercise saving faith in and of themselves.
John 12 – Again, all *kinds* of men (Jews and Gentiles).
Romans 8 – Your intepretation of Romans 8 folds in on itself. If God is God (and He is) and He “looked down the corridors of time” and saw who would and who wouldn’t choose Him, then elected people on that very basis there are a few problems:
1. He is still subject to the whims of man.
2. Why didn’t He just change things more to the way He wanted them, since He looked into the future? As God, were His hands tied as to what He *could* and *could not* do?
Anyway, the Predestination that is spoken of here in Romans 8 is one that matches the same definitions elsewhere. God, by the mere pleasure of His Own will, did desire to save a people for Himself. The “foreknowledge” alluded to in Romans 8 is not speaking of foreknowing an action in time, but foreknowing a people. God is outside of time and doesn’t have to “look down” into it. He’s the Creator of it. You can’t plan the end and not plan the means.
I apologize for the sloppiness, but I’m a bit short on time.
Sincerely,
Josh with a J.
Comment by Josh Hicks — September 25, 2009 @ 12:49 pm |
Dear Erica:
No need to apologize for the verboseness of your comments and arguments. For it is refreshing to read such lucid and tightly argued theological claims—from non-Calvinists—as you’ve done here. And by the way, to be sure, since “the argument between predestination & free-will is kinda [your] “thing,” I do believe you are in very good company with these Calvinistic bloggers…seems to be “kinda” their thing as well.
Your closing challenge was: “I’d love to hear any refutes you have to anything I say!” Although I have only a few short and succinct thoughts of my own to contribute—for the sake of clarity more than refutation—I would love to hear any responses from you in regards to Josh’s comments/arguments. I do believe that Josh moved the conversation to its most fundamental basis, namely, the hermeneutical methods/principles being imported in interpreting Scripture. Moreover, I also think he has clarified some of the terminological-confusion often used in this debate between Calvinists and those who are not. This said, allow me to chime-in with a few qualifiers and thoughts of my own.
First, apparently, the 1Tim2 passage seems to be the locus of your use/meaning over the Greek adjective pas or ‘all.’ As Josh made clear, this adjective more often than not in the N.T. means “of every kind” or “from a variety” and “out of the whole.” Now there’s no debate over the fact that the historical-grammatical method of interpretation would demand we interpret each and every word from its immediate context; and in the passages you cite, the Calvinistic interpretation is most consistent here. For instance, when Paul uses “all men” in 1Tim2 to mean “all types” of men, we must not neglect his immediate intention or meaning that salvation is never limited to any particular ethnic community or group of humanity. I thought your exegesis of Rom 9 and 10 (for the most part) made this clear. In addition, I would like to point out the exegetical fact that pas as used in 1Tim2:4-6 is also used in 1Tim6:10, wherein its meaning is “all kinds.” I don’t know about you, but frequently I have to correct my fellow Christians when they cite this passage, as “the love of money is the root of ALL evil.” Furthermore—and this is more of a pragmatic point—consider the everyday linguistic usage of the term “all.” Isn’t it true that with such a universal term as “all”, very seldom do we use it to refer to each and every individual? I don’t think this use/mention distinction has changed over the centuries; for it is an intuitable use of generalization. Likewise, I’m convinced when we examine the Scriptures closely and carefully, one is hard-pressed to find Paul (or John) using this little but loud adjective to mean each and every individual…its just not there. Instead what we do discover is that the use/mention distinction is used to mean the whole (i.e. to the Church or to humanity in general), and thus, not any mentioning of the parts or individuals
Secondly and more importantly, let us assume for the sake of argument that such “all” passages are as you believe them to be. In which case, what necessarily follows is, that since Christ died for ‘all’, then nobody could ever undergo the holy/righteous punishment and judgment of God. This is a very serious and dangerous misunderstanding of the justice of God and His effectuality in the work of the cross. Here’s what I mean. If in fact Christ died for even one person—who end the end, never truly believed in Him– then both on legal and logical grounds, that person can stand before God and say: “But God, your Word unequivocally states Christ died for me [Even Erica told me so] so how can you judge me! For in fact, Jesus already died for my sins on the Cross; so how can you judge me a second time God? For this would be unjust!” As you may know, this is what is known as ‘double jeopardy’ and makes a metaphysical-mess out of the justice of God and the meaning of the Cross! Yes, it is true that such issues move us in the direction of the effectual grace of God’s gift of salvation for His sheep—or, as you may also know, the doctrine of ‘particular atonement.’ Hence, Erica, think critically about the ramifications of your theological convictions concerning these matters. Truly, the doctrine of ‘Universalism’ is anathema and heretically unbiblical. Although I’m not stating you fall into this category, I would seriously have you think more deeply (as I already stated, you are a serious ‘theological thinker’) about the logical consequences of your position–given the interpretations you’ve provided thus far.
Lastly, it is true that “we Calvinists” put a lot of soteriological-stock in the sovereignty of our Lord and God; for what follower of Christ would not do so since we are all banking on the eternality of our very souls? This said, I do believe it to be both wise and biblical, and thusly, to take heed of the glorious truth that our God, “from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…”[The Westminster Confession of Faith, 3:1].
Always keeping it simple, Cheers!
Comment by Mr. Simpleman — September 26, 2009 @ 7:06 pm |
Just one quick question regarding the “looking down the corridors or time” argument for Erica: If God looks down the corridors of time and sees that I will get a haircut Wednesday, September 30, 2009, is there any possibility that I would not get a haircut that Wednesday?
Similarly, if God looks down the corridors of time and sees that Judas will betray Jesus, or that Pilot will refuse to release Jesus at his trial, and that all these events will inevitably lead to the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection is there any “chance” that the “free will” of any of the agents (me and my haircut, Judas and Pilot) could make God myopic? Is there any possibility whatsoever that God could “see” something that He really didn’t see?
LJ
Comment by L Jones — September 28, 2009 @ 9:06 am |