# Is there a sense in which God desires all men to be saved?



## Skyler

Passages like 1 Timothy 2 would seem to indicate that there is a sense in which God does desire the salvation of even the nonelect. The explanation I've heard of "all kinds of men" really seems to be doing exegetical gymnastics to the passage.

What is your understanding of this passage in light of limited atonement?


----------



## OPC'n

no


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> no



How helpful. It's all becoming clear now. 

Seriously though. "No" what?


----------



## BobVigneault

Sarah, come on, you can do better than that. 

In that scripture says explicitly that God desires that everyone should be saved then there must be a 'sense' in which it is true. Now back up and go at this again. This is a great question and one you will be confronted with over and over.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Skyler said:


> Passages like 1 Timothy 2 would seem to indicate that there is a sense in which God does desire the salvation of even the nonelect. The explanation I've heard of "all kinds of men" really seems to be doing exegetical gymnastics to the passage.
> 
> What is your understanding of this passage in light of limited atonement?



I don't think "all kinds of men" is doing gymnastics. Rather, it is interpreting the passage in context. Does the passage teach that God desires the salvation of all men _individually_ or _indiscriminately_?

Even if this passage could be legitimately be interpreted in either sense (which I doubt), then it should properly be taken off the table as weighing in favor of either view -- since ambiguous passages should be interpreted in light of clearer passages related to a specific issue.


----------



## toddpedlar

But there's no gymnastic necessity in order to understand that the "all people" found in both 1 Tim 2:1 and 2:4 does not mean each and every person on the face of the earth. The passage is discussing why there should be no class of person - commoner, king, slave, etc., for whom prayers aren't offered, because God calls all sorts of people to salvation. So we cannot refuse to pray for kings simply because they are kings - nor can we refuse to pray for slaves, simply because they are despised as slaves. Rather, we are called to a universal sort of prayer - to pray for all kinds of people because God is in the business of calling people from every tribe, tongue and nation to Himself. 

To require "all people" to mean "each and every individual person" in those verses is to do an injustice to the text. "all sorts of people" is a perfectly good rendering of the underlying Greek in each case, and carries with it the thought that is fairly clear from the context of those verses. 

So, no - there is no sense in which God desires the salvation of each and every individual - I truly believe we are inserting our own sympathies into such verses and forcing a reading that's not there if we assert that such a reading must be made.


----------



## Herald

Does God's desire that all men be saved originate from His will of decree? This is an important question. If God _decrees _that all men be saved, then all will. Now, if His desire does not come from His will of decree, in what sense does he desire all men to be saved? This builds on brother Bob's post. We certainly will be confronted with this question time and time again.

Is it possible that God's desire in 1 Timothy 2 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; that all are to repent and believe?

*Acts 17:30 * "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..."


----------



## Tripel

Great question, and I think the answer is Yes. This is one of those great mysteries that I don't think our finite minds will ever grasp. It's easy for us to think "God does whatever he wants to do", but it is SO much more complicated than that. 

Did God desire for his Son to to die a horrible death? I don't think the answer is as simple as Yes or No. 

I think God DOES desire for all men to be saved. I think God DOES desire for all men to sing his praises. Does it happen? No. It's a mystery. I don't understand the desires of God and how they mix with his sovereign will.


----------



## toddpedlar

Herald said:


> Does God's desire that all men be saved originate from His will of decree? This is an important question. If God _decrees _that all men be saved, then all will. Now, if His desire does not come from His will of decree, in what sense does he desire all men to be saved? This builds on brother Bob's post. We certainly will be confronted with this question time and time again.
> 
> Is it possible that God's desire in 1 Timothy 2 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; that all are to repent and believe?
> 
> *Acts 17:30 * "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..."


 
But how is it a "desire"? If God desires it in any sense, is it not a failure of His abilities that what he desires cannot come to pass? That is, how can it be that God, knowing that the only way in which any can be saved is for the blood of Christ to cover their sins, desire (in any sense) that someone be saved if He will not give Christ's blood for them? What is the sense of speaking of ANY kind of "desire" there, except to "let God off the hook"?


----------



## PresbyDane

Skyler said:


> Passages like 1 Timothy 2 would seem to indicate that there is a sense in which God does desire the salvation of even the nonelect. The explanation I've heard of "all kinds of men" really seems to be doing exegetical gymnastics to the passage.
> 
> What is your understanding of this passage in light of limited atonement?



Skyler I think this is a really good question.
Being reformed I believe that God has predestined some of the people of the world to become his people, eventhough I do not know who or how many.
That being said I must admit that I have been thinking about just this question and still am to a sertain point.
I think that what I believe, and stated above is also why sjonee answered no!
(sorry sjonee if that is not the case)
I have found Gods election of us to be the most peace giving and loyal to his word interpretation that there is, and I will not let i go.
But, back to the but...
I do accationally meet verses in scripture that lets me think that in some way God wants everybody to come to a knowledge of him (that would maybe fit in with God being a God of love)
But I also see how God is a God of justice, and how these two things fit together, is out of my grasp of understanding.
It creates two questions for me, which fit in with your own question
1: Why does God save anybody? (as a justified God he did not have to and to me this is the most interesting question, and..
2: Why does God not save everybody? (as God and that a God of love, he could, this is also an interesting question, eventhough a lesser one in my opinion.
But basically I think that why God does or does not do things, is entirely up to him, he has told us what we need to know i.e. "Believe me" and has told us that those who do that will be the saved ones.


----------



## toddpedlar

Tripel said:


> Great question, and I think the answer is Yes. This is one of those great mysteries that I don't think our finite minds will ever grasp. It's easy for us to think "God does whatever he wants to do", but it is SO much more complicated than that.
> 
> Did God desire for his Son to to die a horrible death? I don't think the answer is as simple as Yes or No.
> 
> I think God DOES desire for all men to be saved. I think God DOES desire for all men to sing his praises. Does it happen? No. It's a mystery. I don't understand the desires of God and how they mix with his sovereign will.



So God is powerless to bring about what he desires? Or is he double-minded, wanting one thing and bringing about that which is diametrically opposed to it? Does it make any sense at all to speak of God as desiring the salvation of him upon whom with full and perfect satisfaction he pours forth his wrath?

-----Added 1/26/2009 at 11:40:47 EST-----



Joshua said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did God desire for his Son to to die a horrible death?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, He did, as a _means_ to His desired _end_.
Click to expand...


Most certainly. He was pleased to bruise him, as the prophet says in Isaiah 53, which, before you object, does NOT mean he gleefully subjected Christ to the Cross. It simply means that it was the Father's desire that the Son be so subjected to suffering, curse and death.


----------



## OPC'n

Skyler said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How helpful. It's all becoming clear now.
> 
> Seriously though. "No" what?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think God in any sense desires that every human being be saved otherwise they would be. I don't think He gets His jollies out of sending people to hell, but how would His grace be shown if there were no one going to hell? His grace is His glory and He won't deny Himself His glory. I believe that "all people" means some from every tribe and nation etc.


----------



## Tripel

Joshua said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did God desire for his Son to to die a horrible death?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, He did, as a _means_ to His desired _end_.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. It was part of his plan for salvation, so it had to happen. In that sense, absolutely, God desired it to happen. But I think it is fair to say that in another sense, God did not desire that his holy Son suffer on the cross. A different type of "desire" I guess. Maybe I'm speaking nonsense.

-----Added 1/26/2009 at 11:47:12 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> So God is powerless to bring about what he desires? Or is he double-minded, wanting one thing and bringing about that which is diametrically opposed to it?



I don't think it is a question of power or powerlessness. God is not limited in his power. If God chose to do so, he could have elected all of mankind.

I don't know that "double-minded" is the right way to phrase it, but I don't think everything in God's eternal will is pleasing to him. For example, God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, yet it is in his will to do so. Maybe I am confusing things by talking about multiple types of "desire".


----------



## Herald

toddpedlar said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God's desire that all men be saved originate from His will of decree? This is an important question. If God _decrees _that all men be saved, then all will. Now, if His desire does not come from His will of decree, in what sense does he desire all men to be saved? This builds on brother Bob's post. We certainly will be confronted with this question time and time again.
> 
> Is it possible that God's desire in 1 Timothy 2 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; that all are to repent and believe?
> 
> *Acts 17:30 * "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how is it a "desire"? If God desires it in any sense, is it not a failure of His abilities that what he desires cannot come to pass? That is, how can it be that God, knowing that the only way in which any can be saved is for the blood of Christ to cover their sins, desire (in any sense) that someone be saved if He will not give Christ's blood for them? What is the sense of speaking of ANY kind of "desire" there, except to "let God off the hook"?
Click to expand...


Todd, we can't ignore the word _theleo. _We have to deal with it. The literal translation of the word is "wish", but that conveys the same idea as desire. It's how we contextualize _theleo_ that gives us a clue as to God's mind on the subject. 

I can confidently say that God's desire for you to be saved was effectual because that desire sprung forth from His will of decree. But what of those who are not saved? Does God _theleo_ them to a lesser extent; or is His _theleo_ in keeping with Arminian doctrine? Of course, we would say "no" to both questions. That's why I am suggesting that _theleo_ in 1 Timothy 2:4 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; not a personal desire by God that John, Sue, Geoff or Sandy be saved.


----------



## toddpedlar

Herald said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God's desire that all men be saved originate from His will of decree? This is an important question. If God _decrees _that all men be saved, then all will. Now, if His desire does not come from His will of decree, in what sense does he desire all men to be saved? This builds on brother Bob's post. We certainly will be confronted with this question time and time again.
> 
> Is it possible that God's desire in 1 Timothy 2 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; that all are to repent and believe?
> 
> *Acts 17:30 * "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how is it a "desire"? If God desires it in any sense, is it not a failure of His abilities that what he desires cannot come to pass? That is, how can it be that God, knowing that the only way in which any can be saved is for the blood of Christ to cover their sins, desire (in any sense) that someone be saved if He will not give Christ's blood for them? What is the sense of speaking of ANY kind of "desire" there, except to "let God off the hook"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Todd, we can't ignore the word _theleo. _We have to deal with it. The literal translation of the word is "wish", but that conveys the same idea as desire. It's how we contextualize _theleo_ that gives us a clue as to God's mind on the subject.
> 
> I can confidently say that God's desire for you to be saved was effectual because that desire sprung forth from His will of decree. But what of those who are not saved? Does God _theleo_ them to a lesser extent; or is His _theleo_ in keeping with Arminian doctrine? Of course, we would say "no" to both questions. That's why I am suggesting that _theleo_ in 1 Timothy 2:4 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; not a personal desire by God that John, Sue, Geoff or Sandy be saved.
Click to expand...


Hi Bill -

The dispute isn't over the word _theleo_, but over the word _panta_. Nobody doubts that the word _theleo_ expresses desire or wish... but we can't make God subject to human limitations of desire. To echo the great theologian Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want". This is true of men, but it is NOT true of God. I honestly think the whole discussion centers on our implicit assumption that somehow it's okay for God to desire something that he cannot have, because that's the way it is for you and me. Since that is NOT true for God, then we have to read the text more carefully in context... and I would submit that every single context where this "desire" is expressed is a context that requires _panta_ not to cover each and every individual. 

Todd


----------



## OPC'n

See, Bob, I didn't need to do better than my original answer! I knew these guys would be on this one like white on rice!


----------



## Mushroom

I can hear the teenage agnostic after reading this thread... "Man, that God dude sure sounds 'flicted!"...


----------



## BobVigneault

We also need to deal with 2 Peter 3:9


> 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.



and Ezek. 18:23


> Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?



and a related question:

Does the Lord truly mourn over the lost?

-----Added 1/26/2009 at 12:16:35 EST-----

No you DID have to do better than a one word answer. I've had people, especially moms, walk out of Bible studies I was teaching over this very question. As Todd already pointed out, there is no question that has more sentimental force behind it than this one. We have to have a good, solid answer that anyone can understand and doesn't sound like mental gymnastics.




sjonee said:


> See, Bob, I didn't need to do better than my original answer! I knew these guys would be on this one like white on rice!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

*What God desires, he does.*

- Whatever His soul desires, that He does, (Job 23:13).

- Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases, (Psalm 115:3).

- Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places, (Psalm 135:6).

- I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,' (Isaiah 46:9-10).

- [God] does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?' (Daniel 4:35).

If he _desired_ that all men without exception be saved, they *would be*.


----------



## Mushroom

> 2Pe 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to *you*, beloved...





> ...2Pe 3:9 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.


Any who? Any of *you*.

-----Added 1/26/2009 at 12:28:24 EST-----



> Ezek. 18:23
> Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?


The absence of pleasure is not necessarily mourning.

BTW, can somebody tell me how to do the 'add' thingy?

Now I'm really confused???


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> God does *not* desire all men without exception to be saved. If you think _all _means that, then you must also deny limited atonement, since in verse 6 it says Christ was a ransom for _all_. Do you _really_ want to do that?



That's my question. Do I?

If the Bible teaches that, I most certainly do. 

Anyway. It seems to me, from the context of the chapter, that "all men" would refer to mankind in general. Not necessarily all men as in each and every person, but all men as in humanity.

Maybe like saying "Jesus died for sinners"?


----------



## Ronnie

Gomarus said:


> - Whatever His soul desires, that He does, (Job 23:13).
> 
> - Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases, (Psalm 115:3).
> 
> - Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places, (Psalm 135:6).



Does God desire His people to break His law? 

The question that was asked was if God desires their salvation in any sense. I think a passage like the one in Ezekiel 18:23 makes a strong case that the answer is yes.


----------



## BobVigneault




----------



## charliejunfan

I just heard this from my fiancee Nikki, She says that God desires all men be saved only in the sense that He commanded all men to believe the gospel. I think that that is a very good way to look at it, wooo!


----------



## Skyler

Joshua said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does *not* desire all men without exception to be saved. If you think _all _means that, then you must also deny limited atonement, since in verse 6 it says Christ was a ransom for _all_. Do you _really_ want to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my question. Do I?
> 
> If the Bible teaches that, I most certainly do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I _hope_ you don't believe that, since all of Scripture points to the truth that Christ came to save His people, and that He died for His Sheep, etc. Hence, it _cannot_ mean that. Is Christ impotent? Did He come to die on a cross to make men save_able_, or to actually _save_ men? The latter, of course.
Click to expand...


Could you have both?

I've heard from a few sources that John Calvin was a bit ambiguous on the point of limited atonement. Dr. Curt Daniel commented that he never explicitly propounded limited atonement, and there were several places where he implicitly seemed to promote unlimited atonement, to some extent.

I'm still working my way through his messages on election so limited atonement is several hours of listening away. 



> Anyway. It seems to me, from the context of the chapter, that "all men" would refer to mankind in general. Not necessarily all men as in each and every person, but all men as in humanity.
> 
> Maybe like saying "Jesus died for sinners"?
> 
> 
> 
> The passage means all _kinds_ of men. He didn't die as a ransom for men _in general_. He died for His sheep.
Click to expand...


Calvin said, If I recall correctly, that Jesus' atonement was sufficient for all but efficient only for his elect.

I'm not suggesting an Arminian view of atonement, in limiting its power but not its scope. I'm thinking perhaps there is a sense in which the atonement is limited in power and universal in scope, but unlimited in power for the chosen people.

Thoughts?


----------



## BobVigneault

It is Charlie and that is the secret vs. revealed will (or decretive vs. preceptive) argument. Deut 29:29

Here is how Edwards said it:



> "Though He hates sin in itself, yet He may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though He has no inclination to a creature's misery [He desires none perish], considered absolutely, yet He may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality."





charliejunfan said:


> I just heard this from my fiancee Nikki, She says that God desires all men be saved only in the sense that He commanded all men to believe the gospel. I think that that is a very good way to look at it, wooo!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

charliejunfan said:


> I just heard this from my fiancee Nikki, She says that God desires all men be saved only in the sense that He commanded all men to believe the gospel. I think that that is a very good way to look at it, wooo!



Nikki sounds like a keeper. 

As Bawb says, this is related to God's preceptive will vs decretive will. God's preceptive will establishes what man ought to do and that which is in-keeping-with and agreeable to God's nature, but it is not volitional as is his decretive will.

This distinction is made by Turretin and Edwards among many others. It is taking God's preceptive will and assigning _volitional desire _to it that causes the problems we see in sloppy theology today.


----------



## BobVigneault

A fascinating observation of this question is that it really does come from sentiment and a sentiment so strong that we feel defensive about it and try to save God's nice guy image.

Fact is, this question should be the problem of the arminian. If they really want to push the idea that God desires no one to be lost then they are defending a god who is weak and can't accomplish what he wants. This is called open theism and it's most notable supporter is Clark Pinnock.

This question really points to the weakness of arminianism. A weakling god is the only intellectually honest conclusion that one can draw if they answer in the affirmative (to the original post). 

If someone asks you a question like this, you need to first show them that there is a bigger question at stake then the freewill of man. It's also easy to demonstrate that the arminian is putting sentiment above a good hermeneutic.


----------



## OPC'n

BobVigneault said:


> We also need to deal with 2 Peter 3:9
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Ezek. 18:23
> 
> 
> 
> Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and a related question:
> 
> Does the Lord truly mourn over the lost?
> 
> -----Added 1/26/2009 at 12:16:35 EST-----
> 
> No you DID have to do better than a one word answer. I've had people, especially moms, walk out of Bible studies I was teaching over this very question. As Todd already pointed out, there is no question that has more sentimental force behind it than this one. We have to have a good, solid answer that anyone can understand and doesn't sound like mental gymnastics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, Bob, I didn't need to do better than my original answer! I knew these guys would be on this one like white on rice!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, Bob, did I answer the question solidly and understandably without bending over backwards?  I liked your last answer...I thought at first you were saying something different...I thought you were a secrete Arminian.


----------



## BobVigneault

Sarah, I wasn't against the content of your answer, I was against the brevity. I knew what you meant, but it's not what the free willy 'God loves everyone' person wants to hear.

I once asked a good friend of mine who held strongly that Gods desires everyone to be saved (without exception), this question: Do you believe that God loves people in hell?

She didn't even hesitate, "Yes!!! And he feels so bad and wishes they were not!"

That is strong sentiment and very difficult to argue with. When the heart rules the mind, what good is argument?


----------



## Herald

toddpedlar said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how is it a "desire"? If God desires it in any sense, is it not a failure of His abilities that what he desires cannot come to pass? That is, how can it be that God, knowing that the only way in which any can be saved is for the blood of Christ to cover their sins, desire (in any sense) that someone be saved if He will not give Christ's blood for them? What is the sense of speaking of ANY kind of "desire" there, except to "let God off the hook"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd, we can't ignore the word _theleo. _We have to deal with it. The literal translation of the word is "wish", but that conveys the same idea as desire. It's how we contextualize _theleo_ that gives us a clue as to God's mind on the subject.
> 
> I can confidently say that God's desire for you to be saved was effectual because that desire sprung forth from His will of decree. But what of those who are not saved? Does God _theleo_ them to a lesser extent; or is His _theleo_ in keeping with Arminian doctrine? Of course, we would say "no" to both questions. That's why I am suggesting that _theleo_ in 1 Timothy 2:4 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; not a personal desire by God that John, Sue, Geoff or Sandy be saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Bill -
> 
> The dispute isn't over the word _theleo_, but over the word _panta_. Nobody doubts that the word _theleo_ expresses desire or wish... but we can't make God subject to human limitations of desire. To echo the great theologian Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want". This is true of men, but it is NOT true of God. I honestly think the whole discussion centers on our implicit assumption that somehow it's okay for God to desire something that he cannot have, because that's the way it is for you and me. Since that is NOT true for God, then we have to read the text more carefully in context... and I would submit that every single context where this "desire" is expressed is a context that requires _panta_ not to cover each and every individual.
> 
> Todd
Click to expand...


Todd, you've completely missed my point. God never desires something that he can't have. In regards to soteriology, God's call is effectual. If we're good card carrying Calvinists we better believe that. But what did Paul mean when he said, God desires all to come to repentance? Our overarching soteriology keeps at bay any Arminian view of the text, but we're intellectually dishonest if we don't tackle the term in context. 

If you notice from my earlier suggestion, I did not interpret _theleos _as an unfulfilled desire, but rather an expression of the general call of the gospel. All (and I mean each and every person) are called to repent and believe. The only other plausible interpretation would be that God's desire is for all who are appointed unto eternal life to believe. That would take the _theleos _of 1 Tim. 2:4 and make it part of the effectual call.


----------



## OPC'n

BobVigneault said:


> Sarah, I wasn't against the content of your answer, I was against the brevity. I knew what you meant, but it's not what the free willy 'God loves everyone' person wants to hear.
> 
> I once asked a good friend of mine who held strongly that Gods desires everyone to be saved (without exception), this question: Do you believe that God loves people in hell?
> 
> She didn't even hesitate, "Yes!!! And he feels so bad and wishes they were not!"
> 
> That is strong sentiment and very difficult to argue with. When the heart rules the mind, what good is argument?



Agreed! Maybe you should comment on this post. Frankly, I'm tired of debating on that post as to why I don't believe God loves everyone. Perhaps you could reconcile their heart with their minds....or mine!


----------



## Hippo

We seem to be getting a lot of posts asking the same question in slightly different terms. At the root of the argument is a desire to look past the historic concept of God's preceptive will and conflate a preceptive desire with a decretive one. In doing so you are either redefining words to create confusion (or as some would say "mystery") or you are actually approaching Amyraldism.


----------



## Marrow Man

I believe that both Spurgeon and Piper hold to the "all men" position (as in the original post's question) from 1 Timothy 2.


----------



## Skyler

Hippo said:


> We seem to be getting a lot of posts asking the same question in slightly different terms. At the root of the argument is a desire to look past the historic concept of God's preceptive will and conflate a preceptive desire with a decretive one. In doing so you are either redefining words to create confusion (or as some would say "mystery") or you are actually approaching Amyraldism.



So is it true, then, that in God's preceptive will He desires all(meaning all) men to be saved?

That's what I was trying to get at with "in some sense".

EDIT: MarrowMan, which position?


----------



## cih1355

Skyler said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be getting a lot of posts asking the same question in slightly different terms. At the root of the argument is a desire to look past the historic concept of God's preceptive will and conflate a preceptive desire with a decretive one. In doing so you are either redefining words to create confusion (or as some would say "mystery") or you are actually approaching Amyraldism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true, then, that in God's preceptive will He desires all(meaning all) men to be saved?
> 
> That's what I was trying to get at with "in some sense".
> 
> EDIT: MarrowMan, which position?
Click to expand...


I think what is meant by, "in some sense", is that God commands all men to come to Christ. 

God did not make a plan that all men will be saved. He is not attempting to save everyone. He does not intend to save everyone.


----------



## Hippo

Skyler said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be getting a lot of posts asking the same question in slightly different terms. At the root of the argument is a desire to look past the historic concept of God's preceptive will and conflate a preceptive desire with a decretive one. In doing so you are either redefining words to create confusion (or as some would say "mystery") or you are actually approaching Amyraldism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true, then, that in God's preceptive will He desires all(meaning all) men to be saved?
> 
> That's what I was trying to get at with "in some sense".
> 
> EDIT: MarrowMan, which position?
Click to expand...


Why is this important to you? 

I would hope that you are not planning to tell people that God desires their salvation without fully explaining the context in which "desire" is being used, that would be seriously misleading.


----------



## discipulo

Hippo said:


> I would hope that you are not planning to tell people that God desires their salvation without fully explaining the context in which "desire" is being used, that would be seriously misleading.



Absolutely. On that we certainly must all agree

Between the Perceptive will and the Decretive will, some sound men placed some distinction.

emphasis added 

_Though the efficacy and benefits be certainly intended to believers, yet God’s offer of Christ, and the publication of the gospel is general: Isa. lv. 1‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come to the waters;’ Rev. xxii. 17, Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.’ Such commands being rather an intimation of what he would have us do than what he intendeth we shall do; *of the creature’s duty rather than of God’s* (...decretive...) * will. It is the will *(...preceptive...) *of God’s pleasure that they ought to seek after an interest in Christ. * So it is said, 1 Tim ii. 4, ‘God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth;’ voluntate praecepti, by the will of his command: and by virtue of this we are bidden to preach the gospel to every creature, Mark xvi. 16. To the making it effectual, there is required not only God’s will, but God’s grace…_

*Thomas Manton, Works, 3:334*

God delights in the conversion and eternal life of the sinner, as a thing pleasing in itself, and congruous with His own infinitely compassionate nature, rather than in his perdition; and therefore demands from man, as an act due from him, to turn if he would live. *But although He does not will, in the sense of delighting in, the death of the sinner, He at the same time wills, in the sense of decreeing, the death of the sinner for the display of His justice. *Even as an upright magistrate, though he does not delight in and desire the death of the criminal, yet determines to inflict the just penalty of the law." 

*Francis Turretin - Institutes of Elenctic Theology IV ch. XVII . 33*


----------



## Skyler

Hippo said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be getting a lot of posts asking the same question in slightly different terms. At the root of the argument is a desire to look past the historic concept of God's preceptive will and conflate a preceptive desire with a decretive one. In doing so you are either redefining words to create confusion (or as some would say "mystery") or you are actually approaching Amyraldism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true, then, that in God's preceptive will He desires all(meaning all) men to be saved?
> 
> That's what I was trying to get at with "in some sense".
> 
> EDIT: MarrowMan, which position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this important to you?
> 
> I would hope that you are not planning to tell people that God desires their salvation without fully explaining the context in which "desire" is being used, that would be seriously misleading.
Click to expand...


It's important to me because I'm really uncomfortable with the exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 as given by many(most?) Calvinists. Like Spurgeon said in his sermon on the text:

Salvation by Knowing the Truth



C. H. Spurgeon said:


> You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.



^^That's what I think I'm leaning towards.


----------



## BobVigneault

That is why Spurgeon is called a Biblicist first and a Calvinist second.

Meanwhile, there are sea slugs like us who are so sure of our abilities to reason and exegete and discern and handle scripture as if we helped write it. God is sure lucky he has us.


----------



## tdowns

*Thanks Bob!*

For my daily dose of a chuckle with my theology...now if it was only on tap my brother.


----------



## MW

On the 1st Timothy passage, it would be well to note that the basis for God willing and seeking the salvation of all men is the ransom that has been made for all men by Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and men. The passage clearly makes God's will and the ransom of Jesus Christ co-extensive, so that the objects are one and the same. Those that maintain God desires the salvation of each and every man are bound by exegetical consistency to accept the erroneous doctrine of universal redemption by Jesus Christ.


----------



## discipulo

in my opinion it is important to read 1 Tim 2:4 *will *and *all *in accordance with 

_And this is the Father's *will *which hath sent me, that of *all *which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 
And this is the *will* of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day._ 

John 6:39-40, 44

emphasis added


----------



## Herald

Joshua said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> But did Paul mean when he said, god desires all to come to repentance?
> 
> 
> 
> All of the Elect. Because he's not slack in fulfilling His promise (i.e. to save the elect).
> 
> 
> 
> All (and I mean each and every person) are called to repenent and believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is _not_ what the text says. It says God _desires_ all men to be saved. That's not the same thing as the General call.
Click to expand...


Why is what I'm saying so difficult to understand? I posed my questions in such a way to compel people to interact with the text. 

I agree that only the elect are called, but Paul uses terminology that forces us to take a close look at what's being said. I suppose I'm being a stickler for proper exegesis of the text. _We know_ the elect are the object of God's _theleos_. Why do we know that? Do we know it from the text of 1 Timothy 2, or do we know it because of our greater understanding of election? 

I'm being a prickly pear on this one because it was discussed (at length) during Sunday School this past Lord's Day, and not without rabid participation.


----------



## A.J.

Skyler said:


> Passages like 1 Timothy 2 would seem to indicate that there is a sense in which God does desire the salvation of even the nonelect. The explanation I've heard of "all kinds of men" really seems to be doing exegetical gymnastics to the passage.
> 
> What is your understanding of this passage in light of limited atonement?



It is not exegetical gymnastics to interpret it in that way. I would say that the context demands it. The Bible's use of the word "all" differs from one verse to another. And as with other topics (e.g. the mode of baptism), the _context_ must determine the usage of the word. (All quotations are from the ESV.)



> First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for *all people, for kings and all who are in high positions*, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all people* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. - 1 Tim. 2:1-6



If the "all" here refers to "all without exception" (or "each and every individual"), then does it not follow that we _should_ pray for all men without exception who have lived in the past (who are either in heaven or hell now), all men without exception who are living today, and all men without exception who will live in the future? This would mean praying for the Pharaoh of Moses' time, and Judas Iscariot! The text obviously does not teach that. Let us look at other examples which show that context is extremely important in determining the usage of a word. 



> When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and *all Jerusalem* with him; - Matthew 2:3
> 
> and you will be hated by *all* for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. - Matthew 10:22
> 
> In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that *all the world* should be registered. - Luke 2:1
> 
> “Come, see a man who told me *all* that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” - John 4:29
> 
> crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching *everyone everywhere* against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” - Acts 21:28
> 
> “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by *all the Jews*. - Acts 26:4
> 
> “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on *all flesh*, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; - Acts 2:17
> 
> And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom *all Asia and the world* worship.” - Acts 19:27
> 
> First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in *all the world*. - Romans 1:8



Aside from the Jewish rulers of Palestine during NT times, who were the "kings" and those in "high positions" back then? They are the _Gentile_ Romans, especially the emperor in Rome! So Paul was saying that Christians during his time also had to pray for these (unbelieving) Gentiles (whom the Jews did not like) that they may also come to the knowledge of the truth. NT writers like Paul had to emphasize the fact that God's salvific work was not for the Jews only (a single nation), but to all the (Gentile) nations. The use of the word "all" is consistent with this. 



> And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall *all the nations* be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. - Gal. 3:8-9
> 
> And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of *all nations*, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Matt. 28:18-20
> 
> He is the propitiation for our sins, and *not for ours only* but also for the sins of the *whole world*. - 1 John 2:2 (cf. John 11:29-52)



As a final note, other Scriptural texts connect the coming to the knowledge of truth (1 Tim. 2:4) with God's unconditional election, and reprobation. These texts are helpful in understanding the meaning of 1 Tim. 2. 



> First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for *all people, for kings and all who are in high positions*, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who *desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth*. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. - 1 Tim. 2:1-6
> 
> When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has *granted repentance that leads to life*.”- Acts 11:28
> 
> And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps *grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth*, - 2 Tim. 2:24-25
> 
> For it has been *granted to you* that for the sake of Christ *you should not only believe in him* but also suffer for his sake, - Phil. 1:29
> 
> Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “*To you it has been given* to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, *but to them it has not been given*.– Matt. 13:10-11



So God predestines some (the elect) to come to the knowledge of the truth leaving the rest (the reprobates) to their just condemnation. See 1 Timothy 2:4 - An Exegesis by Alan Kurschner for a more detailed explanation of the text and for a rebuttal of the Arminian interpretation. Thanks for asking.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Meanwhile, there are sea slugs like us who are so sure of our abilities to reason and exegete and discern and handle scripture as if we helped write it. God is sure lucky he has us.



 If Spurgeon showed up to this thread _incognito_, he'd likely have gotten a good drubbing!


----------



## BobVigneault

Who is this drubbler of Israel?


----------



## Ivan

Spurgeon could hold his own, I'm sure.


----------



## AThornquist

I tend to agree with Piper and Spurgeon on this, although I honestly don't know. My pastors hold to Piper's and Spurgeon's view as well. What I do know is that I just don't understand how God fails in any way if he desires the salvation of all in some sense. I mean, the Lord is far more complex than human beings. Human beings can desire several conflicting things but choose the best option. In this case, I'm not exactly sure what is so far out about the idea of God desiring the salvation of all without exception but having an even greater desire and priority to display both His wrath and mercy. So, God would not in any way be "failing" to save people or fulfill His desires. He _does_ do what He wants to do.

Help me out, if I'm wrong?


----------



## OPC'n

If God does have a desire for all men to be saved, then that desire cannot be interpreted as the sort of desires that mankind has. We desire because we want something and at least try to obtain it. *If* God desires, then I think we would have to define "desire" as a command. A general command that people stop rebelling against His laws. If we think about it, mankind is still under the works covenant. Just because Adam failed to uphold his part of that covenant doesn't mean God said, "Ok, I'll just let this one go." He still holds mankind to that covenant so in a way He desires or commands that we fulfill it. Now, we have Christ who fulfilled it for us whereas the unelect do not.


----------



## christianhope

I pulled Calvin's commentary on that specific verse. It looks pretty good and it's what I've thought previously. God has two wills- both His sovereign/secret will, and His revealed will. 

John Calvin:
4 "Who wishes that all men may be saved. ...And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. *Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. *This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if
“the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth,” (Romans 1:16,)
it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.
Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination." End quote.

John Frame a well respected theologian and accomplished biblical exegete at RTS put it this way:

"God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends" (113).

So, yes, God does desire all men to be saved, but that does not supercede His sovereign election which takes precedence. Rather, His desire is seen in that it extends through the gospel to all men- hence His 'desiring that all men be saved' but only those whom He has secretly called respond- called by His irresistible grace. Hope this helps! 

Refs:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.iv.i.html
Enjoying God Ministries

-----Added 1/28/2009 at 08:52:18 EST-----

*As a cautionary note:* 

"If we say that God does not desire all men to be saved" - then it's as if we are saying that the gospel should not be preached to every creature. We are commanded to preach the gospel, we leave the salvation of the elect up to God. To say otherwise is to lean towards hyper-Calvinism which is something I hope none of us desire. If we lean, we might step, and next thing we know were not sharing the gospel with others because in our minds 'they are not elect.' Which is only in the jurisdiction of God- to tread there is to tread in hypocrisy and error, upon His holy ground. May our feet not be found there.

I realize many have answered for the sake of the truth here in sincerity, saying that 'no' God does not desire all men to be saved otherwise they would be! And certainly that is true in His sovereign will, but His revealed will is that He desires 'all men to be saved' in that His gospel is preached to all. I do not intend to stain anyone's character or reputation on this board, I only feel there is a misunderstanding in this scripture and I'm trying to give light on it. I'm only saying the same thing John Calvin said in regard to it- not because it was him, but simply because I believe it's a right understanding of that scripture.


----------



## OPC'n

> "If we say that God does not desire all men to be saved" - then it's as if we are saying that the gospel should not be preached to every creature.



Maybe a hyper-calvinist but not a real Calvinist.


----------



## Skyler

So I think the conclusion that I'm seeing is that in God's "preceptive" will, just as he finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked, he wishes that all could be saved. However, this doesn't change the fact that he decreed that some would not be. Correct?


----------



## OPC'n

no


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> no



*waits for a slightly less laconic response*


----------



## OPC'n

Skyler said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *waits for a slightly less laconic response*
Click to expand...



I'm just kidding with you, bud! I figured I had to finish as I began to make Bob happy. Seriously, maybe my last comment before this one would be more to everyone's liking than the rest of my comments. Cheers! 

-----Added 1/28/2009 at 10:14:37 EST-----

urrr....comment #59


----------



## TsonMariytho

I don't think this question should have been nearly as controversial as it has been regarded in follow up discussion. It didn't ask "In *your preferred sense* of the words, does God desire all men to be saved", but rather, it asked, "*Is there a [i.e. any common] sense* in which God desires all men to be saved?"

That net is cast pretty widely, and the case has been made pretty well above by several people, that the Bible speaks of God's desire or "preference" that even the dying wicked turn to him and be saved. It's really the same concept as God's revealed "preference" that Adam not sin in the first place.

We can explain it as God's revealed, commanding will, as distinct from his inscrutable, predestinating will, and it's great that we can make that theological distinction; but the fact remains that speaking of God's revealed will as God's "desire" is both Biblical and appropriate. (Speaking of God's predestinating will in the same way is also appropriate. Please don't ask me to explain how this works, because I don't understand it.)

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not *rather* that he should turn from his way and live? 
...
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."
...
Eze 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?​
It's the same concept as with James 2:24. Since we differ from Martin Luther on the composition of the canon of scripture, we must affirm that there is a sense in which "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (a verbatim quote from James). Explaining that verse in light of other scriptures is a tricky task, but simply affirming that it's true "in a sense" should be easy for us, who accept all scripture as God-breathed.


----------



## he beholds

Kauffeld said:


> I pulled Calvin's commentary on that specific verse. It looks pretty good and it's what I've thought previously. God has two wills- both His sovereign/secret will, and His revealed will.
> 
> John Calvin:
> 4 "Who wishes that all men may be saved. ...And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. *Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. *This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if
> “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth,” (Romans 1:16,)
> it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.
> Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination." End quote.
> 
> John Frame a well respected theologian and accomplished biblical exegete at RTS put it this way:
> 
> "God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends" (113).
> 
> So, yes, God does desire all men to be saved, but that does not supercede His sovereign election which takes precedence. Rather, His desire is seen in that it extends through the gospel to all men- hence His 'desiring that all men be saved' but only those whom He has secretly called respond- called by His irresistible grace. Hope this helps!
> 
> Refs:
> Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
> Enjoying God Ministries
> 
> -----Added 1/28/2009 at 08:52:18 EST-----
> 
> *As a cautionary note:*
> 
> *"If we say that God does not desire all men to be saved" - then it's as if we are saying that the gospel should not be preached to every creature. *We are commanded to preach the gospel, we leave the salvation of the elect up to God. To say otherwise is to lean towards hyper-Calvinism which is something I hope none of us desire. If we lean, we might step, and next thing we know were not sharing the gospel with others because in our minds 'they are not elect.' Which is only in the jurisdiction of God- to tread there is to tread in hypocrisy and error, upon His holy ground. May our feet not be found there.
> 
> I realize many have answered for the sake of the truth here in sincerity, saying that 'no' God does not desire all men to be saved otherwise they would be! And certainly that is true in His sovereign will, but His revealed will is that He desires 'all men to be saved' in that His gospel is preached to all. I do not intend to stain anyone's character or reputation on this board, I only feel there is a misunderstanding in this scripture and I'm trying to give light on it. I'm only saying the same thing John Calvin said in regard to it- not because it was him, but simply because I believe it's a right understanding of that scripture.




How can we say that God *does* desire all men to be saved? Who does the saving? God. If he desires all men to be saved, then he desires to save all men, since they cannot be saved another way. 

In regards to your assertion that believing that God does not want all men to be saved means that we would also believe that we should not preach the Gospel to every creature, I disagree. Since we do not know which specific men God desires to save, we will still go and preach to all. 

I do not think God's revealed will says anything contrary to his secret will. (Thus, I do not think there are separate wills of God.) In God's revealed will, we can see that God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.


----------



## jbotkin

> How can we say that God does desire all men to be saved? Who does the saving? God. If he desires all men to be saved, then he desires to save all men, since they cannot be saved another way.
> 
> In regards to your assertion that believing that God does not want all men to be saved means that we would also believe that we should not preach the Gospel to every creature, I disagree. Since we do not know which specific men God desires to save, we will still go and preach to all.
> 
> I do not think God's revealed will says anything contrary to his secret will. (Thus, I do not think there are separate wills of God.) In God's revealed will, we can see that God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.



Then why aren't all Christians (or all people for that matter) perfectly holy all the time? 

_1 Thess 4:3-7 - For this is the *will of God*, your sanctification: [2] that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body [3] in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. _

Or why isn't all foolish, unbelieving people put to shame by the good works of God's people?

_1 Peter 2:15 - "For this is *the will of God*, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."_

We could go on, but I think if we are allowing our theology to be built up from the text itself, we have to say that God reveals in his Word that there are two levels of his willing: a) a general desire for some things, and b) a decree that all things will come to pass the way they do, including certain violations of willing "a." 

I say this as committed Calvinist in regards to election and limited atonement. But in reading certain texts (like those that have been cited above), I have to think that there is some sense in which God's love for his creation means that he doesn't delight in the death of the wicked and in some way desires them to be saved even as a human father desires his children to always obey him. Yet, in the mystery of his perfect character, God still chooses to save only a select group for himself out of all humanity. 

I love theological precision, but think there is still a place where you stand back at the majestic glory of God and claim mystery on some things.


----------



## he beholds

jbotkin said:


> How can we say that God does desire all men to be saved? Who does the saving? God. If he desires all men to be saved, then he desires to save all men, since they cannot be saved another way.
> 
> In regards to your assertion that believing that God does not want all men to be saved means that we would also believe that we should not preach the Gospel to every creature, I disagree. Since we do not know which specific men God desires to save, we will still go and preach to all.
> 
> I do not think God's revealed will says anything contrary to his secret will. (Thus, I do not think there are separate wills of God.) In God's revealed will, we can see that God will have mercy on whom he has mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why aren't all Christians (or all people for that matter) perfectly holy all the time?
> 
> _1 Thess 4:3-7 - For this is the *will of God*, your sanctification: [2] that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body [3] in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. _
> Well, I can say that our sanctification *is* occurring, and will be certainly completed when we are raised again.
> 
> Or why isn't all foolish, unbelieving people put to shame by the good works of God's people?
> 
> _1 Peter 2:15 - "For this is *the will of God*, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."_
> 
> Perhaps this is the way God created the world so that it is a simple fact that good does silence ignorance. I don't know, I'd have to look up that verse.
> 
> We could go on, but I think if we are allowing our theology to be built up from the text itself, we have to say that God reveals in his Word that there are two levels of his willing: a) a general desire for some things, and b) a decree that all things will come to pass the way they do, including certain violations of willing "a."
> 
> I say this as committed Calvinist in regards to election and limited atonement. But in reading certain texts (like those that have been cited above), I have to think that there is some sense in which God's love for his creation means that he doesn't delight in the death of the wicked and in some way desires them to be saved even as a human father desires his children to always obey him. Yet, in the mystery of his perfect character, God still chooses to save only a select group for himself out of all humanity.
> 
> I do not think the wicked *are* children of God, though. We become children only through his gracious adoption, and we know He does not adopt all men, so I don't think the second part of your argument fits. I do not understand why God would not fulfill His own desire, when He is fully capable. And I don't think He'd have a wicked desire, so if He did desire something, it would be righteous. And I think that He would make every righteous choice.
> 
> I love theological precision, but think there is still a place where you stand back at the majestic glory of God and claim mystery on some things.
Click to expand...


I agree that we will not be able to know all things. But I'm not sure that we will know which things will be understood before we try to understand them. (Nor will we know which things are incomprehensible before we attempt to comprehend them.) So, I think it is too soon for me to claim mystery on this certain thing.


----------



## jbotkin

> 1 Thess 4:3-7 - For this is the will of God, your sanctification: [2] that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body [3] in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can say that our sanctification is occurring, and will be certainly completed when we are raised again.
Click to expand...


Certainly, sanctification as a theological category is occurring. But my point is that exegetically this passage is about more than a process of holiness. God's will is that his people abstain from sexual immortality. Yet, that doesn't always happen. God wills this such a way that he desires it, calls us to it, but does not ensure that it happens the same way he wills the elect are saved. 


> I say this as committed Calvinist in regards to election and limited atonement. But in reading certain texts (like those that have been cited above), I have to think that there is some sense in which God's love for his creation means that he doesn't delight in the death of the wicked and in some way desires them to be saved even as a human father desires his children to always obey him. Yet, in the mystery of his perfect character, God still chooses to save only a select group for himself out of all humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think the wicked are children of God, though. We become children only through his gracious adoption, and we know He does not adopt all men, so I don't think the second part of your argument fits. I do not understand why God would not fulfill His own desire, when He is fully capable. And I don't think He'd have a wicked desire, so if He did desire something, it would be righteous. And I think that He would make every righteous choice
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I never said the wicked were God's children. I simply used an analogy from human parentage. 



> I agree that we will not be able to know all things. But I'm not sure that we will know which things will be understood before we try to understand them. (Nor will we know which things are incomprehensible before we attempt to comprehend them.)



I agree and hope that goes without saying for every Christian.



> So, I think it is too soon for me to claim mystery on this certain thing.



That's why we're here - to discuss and cause one another to think! At least, that's why I come.  I'm not saying don't think it through, just don't allow larger theological paradigms to skew your exegesis. Read the text to build theology, don't read theology into the text - that's how I moved from where I was to where I am now, Reformed in my understading of God's word. We have nothing to fear from the Bible!


----------



## Ronnie

I think much of the problem with these discussion on God loving the non-elect or desiring the salvation of the non-elect is that we are reading the Scriptures as rationalistic fundamentalists. We have got to listen and follow the Scriptures and nuance our speaking about God so that we speak accurately about Him.



jbotkin said:


> ...
> But in reading certain texts (like those that have been cited above), I have to think that there is some sense in which God's love for his creation means that he doesn't delight in the death of the wicked and in some way desires them to be saved even as a human father desires his children to always obey him.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I do not think the wicked are children of God, though. We become children only through his gracious adoption, and we know He does not adopt all men, so I don't think the second part of your argument fits.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the wicked were God's children. I simply used an analogy from human parentage.
Click to expand...


Acts 17:28-29
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, *'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring*, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill.​
So just like "in a sense" God loves the non-elect, and "in a sense" He desires the salvation of the non-elect, the non-elect "in a sense" are His children. Paul could even agree with a heathen poet on this one.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Yes, by all means we should bow to the clear teaching of Scripture.

Whatever His soul desires, that He does, (Job 23:13).

The "sense" in which God desires the salvation of the reprobate _may perhaps_ be ascribed to his preceptive will, which sets forth what man ought to do and that which is consistent with God's nature and would be pleasing to Him. But this _desire_ (as reflected in his preceptive will) is not volitional but sets forth man's obligation and duty. 

To say that God actively desires that which he will not accomplish (contrary to the verse above) is to attribute internal conflict and eternal frustration to the Godhead.


----------



## Ronnie

Gomarus said:


> Yes, by all means we should bow to the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> Whatever His soul desires, that He does, (Job 23:13).
> 
> The "sense" in which God desires the salvation of the reprobate _may perhaps_ be ascribed to his preceptive will, which sets forth what man ought to do and that which is consistent with God's nature and would be pleasing to Him. But this _desire_ (as reflected in his preceptive will) is not volitional but sets forth man's obligation and duty.



God's preceptive will is not restricted to _"what man ought to do and that which is consistent with God's nature and would be pleasing to Him."_, but it also includes what God desires to happen, but doesn't will it to happen. And nothing is contradictory about this because there is something that He desires more and this is what He wills. A perfect example is the passion of Christ. The Father did not take pleasure in this, and neither did the Son, who asked if there was some other way! This is an example of their preceptive will. However, they all desired this suffering according to their decretive will and they willed it to happen. This is true for us also. None of us desire our children to experience pain ( preceptive will ), but yet we all cause our children pain when we do not spare the rod( decretive will ). We do this because there is greater good that is acheived in our carrying out a decretive will that goes against a preceptive will.



Gomarus said:


> To say that God actively desires that which he will not accomplish (contrary to the verse above) is to attribute internal conflict and eternal frustration to the Godhead.


No it does not cause internal conflict or frustration if this is part of the eternal plan all along.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Spurgeon could hold his own, I'm sure.



Agreed, Pastor. That doesn't mean we wouldn't try! (I think the same thing about Calvin - I always wonder if Brother Cauvin wouldn't be tarred and feathered for being too wishy-washy on points of doctrine we were _sure_ we had nailed down)


----------



## he beholds

Ronnie said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, by all means we should bow to the clear teaching of Scripture.
> 
> Whatever His soul desires, that He does, (Job 23:13).
> 
> The "sense" in which God desires the salvation of the reprobate _may perhaps_ be ascribed to his preceptive will, which sets forth what man ought to do and that which is consistent with God's nature and would be pleasing to Him. But this _desire_ (as reflected in his preceptive will) is not volitional but sets forth man's obligation and duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's preceptive will is not restricted to _"what man ought to do and that which is consistent with God's nature and would be pleasing to Him."_, but it also includes what God desires to happen, but doesn't will it to happen. And nothing is contradictory about this because there is something that He desires more and this is what He wills. A perfect example is the passion of Christ. The Father did not take pleasure in this, and neither did the Son, who asked if there was some other way! This is an example of their preceptive will. However, they all desired this suffering according to their decretive will and they willed it to happen. This is true for us also. *None of us desire our children to experience pain ( preceptive will ), but yet we all cause our children pain when we do not spare the rod( decretive will ). We do this because there is greater good that is acheived in our carrying out a decretive will that goes against a preceptive will.*
> 
> 
> 
> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that God actively desires that which he will not accomplish (contrary to the verse above) is to attribute internal conflict and eternal frustration to the Godhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not cause internal conflict or frustration if this is part of the eternal plan all along.
Click to expand...


I won't speak personally (so social workers, back off!) but when parents discipline their children, either by rod or the removal of privileges or what have you, I think they do desire their children to feel pain/sorrow in that punishment. If not, they would just tickle them, instead of punishing them. I don't think there are two different things going on: "We don't want pain, yet choose to inflict it." I do think that parents feel sad/guilty/unsure when punishing a child, but I think that is due to our fallibility. If parents were 100% sure that the specific punishment was the right thing and would bring about perfect obedience (or bring them closer to it) then I think parents would feel none of those. Parents are dealing in their own sin and weakness. But if one ever punishes their children, I think they truly do want them to grasp the punishment, and the pain, heartache, sorrow that comes with it, in order to bring them to repentance and discourage it from happening again. 

Plus, we are not God, so it is hard to even mention our own ways when trying to understand God's. 

I think, and I may be way off, that it must have pleased the Father that Christ did sacrifice himself. This verse came to mind: "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a *fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.* " Eph 5:2 (emphasis mine).


----------



## Ronnie

he beholds said:


> I won't speak personally (so social workers, back off!) but when parents discipline their children, either by rod or the removal of privileges or what have you, I think they do desire their children to feel pain/sorrow in that punishment. If not, they would just tickle them, instead of punishing them. I don't think there are two different things going on: "We don't want pain, yet choose to inflict it." I do think that parents feel sad/guilty/unsure when punishing a child, but I think that is due to our fallibility. If parents were 100% sure that the specific punishment was the right thing and would bring about perfect obedience (or bring them closer to it) then I think parents would feel none of those. Parents are dealing in their own sin and weakness. But if one ever punishes their children, I think they truly do want them to grasp the punishment, and the pain, heartache, sorrow that comes with it, in order to bring them to repentance and discourage it from happening again.


I totally disagree. I have 3 boys and use the rod not because I necessarily want them to feel pain, but because I want to correct a behavior. The pain is only a means to a desired end. So believe me if there was a way to achieve the desired results without the pain then I don’t know any parent that would not abandon the pain.



he beholds said:


> Plus, we are not God, so it is hard to even mention our own ways when trying to understand God's.


There is a lot of truth that and you are right, we have to be very careful. However, my point in mentioning this was to show that it is not a contradiction. I think the Scriptural case is made that the same is true of God as I did in the previous post.


he beholds said:


> I think, and I may be way off, that it must have pleased the Father that Christ did sacrifice himself. This verse came to mind: "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. " Eph 5:2 (emphasis mine).


Yes, it did please God in a sense, but God does not receive pleasure in and of itself in pouring out His wrath on His Son. If he did, He would do it without the end of saving the elect, but just because it brings Him joy.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

AThornquist said:


> I tend to agree with Piper and Spurgeon on this, although I honestly don't know. My pastors hold to Piper's and Spurgeon's view as well. What I do know is that I just don't understand how God fails in any way if he desires the salvation of all in some sense. I mean, the Lord is far more complex than human beings. Human beings can desire several conflicting things but choose the best option. In this case, I'm not exactly sure what is so far out about the idea of God desiring the salvation of all without exception but having an even greater desire and priority to display both His wrath and mercy. So, God would not in any way be "failing" to save people or fulfill His desires. He _does_ do what He wants to do.
> 
> Help me out, if I'm wrong?


 
We first have to understand that God has chosen a people for Himself, a special people to receive His saving grace. If you look at the context of the verse in 1 Tim. 2, you see that Paul is talking about God desiring to save all sorts of people around the world. The Jews had their heads stuck in the sand. They thought that God would only interact with them. But Paul is showing Timothy that God has bigger plans; He desires men from every nation, every tribe around the world, to be saved. God doesn't desire the salvation of the non-elect. Does this mean we have something to boast about? NO!!! Of course not. We have been privileged beyond comprehension because we have been included in this very verse.


----------



## JohnOwen007

When it comes to reading 1 Tim. 2:4 there is no consensus in the reformed tradition. The debate has fixed on 2 points, the meaning of "wills / desires" (what does it mean) and "all" (everyone or some).

The word for "desires" (_thelein_) can be interpreted "wishes", "desires", or "wills". To know which one it is depends on the context in which it appears (a basic semantic rule) not on what it could mean to fit my preset theology.

Anyway, as is well known *Augustine* (who only knew Latin) in his _Enchiridion_ (ch. 103) contended that "all" is "all kinds" (distributive) not "everyone", and "wishes" = "wills". Hence he believed that 1 Tim. 2:4 said that people are saved only _by God's will_, and that _all kinds_ of people are saved. Peter Lombard followed Augustine on this point.

However, the great 13th century scholastics followed *John of Damascus*. They argued that God's will is to be understood from two perspectives (amongst others): his antecedent will and his consequent will. God wills that only the elect will be saved by his consequent will, but according to his antecedent will (that is, by considering humans in and of themselves) he desires that they be saved because this is "good" _per se_.

The Scholastics of the 14th and 15th century generally speaking followed either Augustine or John of Damascus.

When we get to the reformation, we find that the number of readings multiplies. For example, *Peter Martyr* follows Augustine; *Andreas Hyperius* believes that 1 Tim. 2:4 speaks of a "conditional will"--God wills all people (every single one) to be saved *if* they repent and believe; *Heinrich Bullinger* (following Prosper of Aquitaine) believed that to attempt an answer at why God wishes all (everyone) to be saved, and yet only some are saved, is a question that humans should not pry into because we can't understand the secret things of the infinite God at this point; *Calvin *believes that 1 Tim. 2:4 is not God's will of good pleasure (_voluntas beneplaciti_) -- namely his plan for the world -- but God's revealed will (_voluntas signi_), which is an urge for us to preach the gospel to all people.

The reformed tradition as it moved into Orthodoxy had representatives of all these positions. Interestingly, *John Owen* (in _Death of Death_) believes the "all" means absolutely everybody, but that the "wishes / wills" = "commands".

Personally, I find Augustine's reading wanting because he doesn't respect the rules of semantics: words derive their meanings from the direct context. In my own opinion, I struggle to read "all" as anything but "everyone" because in the context the word "all" / "each" / "every" (same word in the Greek) permeates the passage with that meaning. E.g. v. 8 "I want men in every place [i.e. every Christian gathering] to lift up holy hands in prayer"; Paul would hardly want men in only some places [of Christian gathering] to lift up holy hands in prayer.

The "all" of v. 4 does not necessarily relate to the "kings" of v.1. The reason to pray for the "kings and all those in authority" is so that (v. 2) "we may live peaceful lives", and that "this is good and pleases God our saviour who wants all to be saved". I.e. we pray for authorities so that there would be political peace because this is the context in which the gospel will spread.

How is it that God wishes all to be saved, and yet only the elect are saved?

Frankly I don't know, but with people like Maurice Roberts and R. Scott Clark, I have to say that we cannot penetrate the mind of God at this point because of our finitude. Our knowledge of God is ectypal (a finite replica) and thus will at points appear irrational to us (Rom. 11:33-36), even though in reality (to God!) it is not.

God bless you all,

Marty.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> I have to say that we cannot penetrate the mind of God at this point because of our finitude.



How can one who has used reason to choose one reading of the text over another lay claim to denying the use of reason to rule out contradiction? Reason is being used to defeat reason.

Ectypal theology still maintains the analogia fidei and rules out the possibility of rational contradiction.


----------



## Jon Lake

Tripel said:


> Great question, and I think the answer is Yes. This is one of those great mysteries that I don't think our finite minds will ever grasp. It's easy for us to think "God does whatever he wants to do", but it is SO much more complicated than that.
> 
> Did God desire for his Son to to die a horrible death? I don't think the answer is as simple as Yes or No.
> 
> I think God DOES desire for all men to be saved. I think God DOES desire for all men to sing his praises. Does it happen? No. It's a mystery. I don't understand the desires of God and how they mix with his sovereign will.


I think this is a good answer. The Scriptures are SUFFICIENT revelation NOT COMPLETE revelation everything about God could not be contained in a book, even were it possible a human mind could never grasp it. I OFTEN refer to certain things as being a Divine Mystery, I do not apologize for it, it is not being evasive. A flaw in systematic theology is the view that EVERYTHING about God can be nicely dissected and placed in Jars for examination. Nonsense there are mysteries, period. Nothing wrong with theology obviously but it should be a "humbling thing" so again in regard to the quote it is well done, it is refreshing in that we give love and awe to our God, we give awe partly for the reason that He is BIGGER than us, the minute we try to strip away the awe and mystery is when we fall into a common trap so prevelant in the modern church, the "Big Buddy in the Sky" view. He is somewhat more than that.


----------



## MW

Jon Lake said:


> I OFTEN refer to certain things as being a Divine Mystery, I do not apologize for it, it is not being evasive.



If the thing is a mystery, and it is one of those things which the Scriptures do not reveal, how can one say anything about it? If it is beyond reason, fair enough, let's all be silent where the Scriptures are silent; but this means we should say nothing, not something which cannot be understood.


----------



## Confessor

armourbearer said:


> Jon Lake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I OFTEN refer to certain things as being a Divine Mystery, I do not apologize for it, it is not being evasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the thing is a mystery, and it is one of those things which the Scriptures do not reveal, how can one say anything about it? If it is beyond reason, fair enough, let's all be silent where the Scriptures are silent; but this means we should say nothing, not something which cannot be understood.
Click to expand...


Furthermore, from what I have noticed in my study of the Word, it is not okay to take a contradiction and arbitrarily declare it a mystery. That opens the floodgates to any heresy, for if we were to confront a heretic on a contradiction, he could claim mystery. Mystery only applies to that which is outside the realm of our possible understanding. The Trinity is a mystery. The Incarnation is a mystery. By definition, since those concepts belong to a realm different from what is observable, we cannot make a definitive statement that God cannot exist as three Persons. We cannot induce that from what we see; therefore we cannot possibly induce that such is impossible. Same with the Incarnation. We cannot make statements about a realm beyond our reach, and therefore only doctrines pertaining to such a realm should be considered _mysteries_. We cannot comprehend them while on this earth.

If anyone wanted an example of an outright contradiction, as opposed to a mystery, I would give him this: God desiring to do something idolatrous. And that is exactly what the "God wants to save everybody" position offers. God can act only for His glory and for no other intent, because any other intent is by definition idolatrous. If He desired something contrary to the maximal displaying of His glory, viz. universalism, then He would be desiring idolatry. Therefore, to say that God wills all men to be saved in any way is to posit a _contradiction_ in God, not a mystery.

God does not want to save His enemies, whom He has hated from eternity, to be saved; for why would they not be saved as a result? Universalism, being a decretive statement, must be categorically part of God's decretive will -- that is, it cannot merely be a _precept_ of God, for that would be a categorical error.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Ectypal theology still maintains the analogia fidei and rules out the possibility of rational contradiction.



That's precisely what I said. The contradiction is only apparent (just like the Trinity, the incarnation etc. etc.) not real.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 03:20:14 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> let's all be silent where the Scriptures are silent; but this means we should say nothing, not something which cannot be understood.



What's the difference?

Surely we can say that the Trinity "cannot be understood" by us humans. Rom. 9:33 tells us that God's ways are beyond tracing out, in other words we can't hope to understand them; the finite cannot contain the infinite. The Trinity can look apparantly contradictory, but in reality it is not, and will never be, because I'll never be God.

-----Added 2/5/2009 at 03:40:06 EST-----

Dear Brother Ben,



Confessor said:


> If anyone wanted an example of an outright contradiction, as opposed to a mystery, I would give him this: God desiring to do something idolatrous. And that is exactly what the "God wants to save everybody" position offers.



Why is this not in the same realm as the Incarnation and the Trinity? The incarnation is way more problematic when it comes to something that looks like idolatry because the finite creature is united to the infinite creator: the creator / creature distinction seems threatened. How is it that Jesus is ignorant of his return, and yet we know that the divine knows everything? We usually explain this by saying that Christ's two natures are united in one person (hypostatic union), hence the natures don't mix and that somehow Christ's divine nature knew everything, but Jesus as a person didn't. Very strange indeed. But this hardly releases the apparant contradiction (the apparent idolatry of mingling creature and creation) even if it gives us conceptual apparatus to think rightly about Christ. It appears idolatrous but in reality (i.e. from God's eternal perspective) it isn't.

Blessings dear brother.

Marty.


----------



## Jon Lake

armourbearer said:


> Jon Lake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I OFTEN refer to certain things as being a Divine Mystery, I do not apologize for it, it is not being evasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the thing is a mystery, and it is one of those things which the Scriptures do not reveal, how can one say anything about it? If it is beyond reason, fair enough, let's all be silent where the Scriptures are silent; but this means we should say nothing, not something which cannot be understood.
Click to expand...

In the words of former Texas Congressman Goodtime Charlie Wilson "Why, I don't even know what that means." Look, by mystery, I mean we can never understand a thing fully! That does not negate the thing. We are married men, we know our wives better than anyone, can they still surprise us, of course. To evade mystery with semantic word games, with due respect, boarders on arrogance. We do not understand everything about God! There is some degree of mystery. Now we know in part...

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Confessor

JohnOwen007 said:


> Why is this not in the same realm as the Incarnation and the Trinity?



Because to say that God desires something contrary to the maximal display of His glory and to make a claim about a realm which by definition we cannot know about and therefore we cannot make judgments about are two entirely different things.

The reason the example of Jesus' not knowing something seems so weird is because it is relating to the Incarnation, which involves a realm we cannot possibly know about.

As for whether it is idolatrous of God to appear in bodily form on Earth, well, there's nothing in Scripture stating that it actually is. Someone could mistakenly believe that, but it's not an actual statement in Scripture. Thus, there is no contradiction. That is entirely different from the contradiction of God desiring all men to be saved.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Confessor said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this not in the same realm as the Incarnation and the Trinity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because to say that God desires something contrary to the maximal display of His glory and to make a claim about a realm which by definition we cannot know about and therefore we cannot make judgments about are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...


Why? How can you claim to know what constitutes the maximal display of God's glory? That's quite an affirmation. For example, how can evil pertain to the maximal display of God's glory? If evil exists to display God's glory, then evil becomes an instrument of goodness, and as such becomes something good. But that can't be. This is the classic antinomy concerning evil and God's glory, which again, we can't explain by our finititude, and must stand in awe before the transcendent God.



Confessor said:


> As for whether it is idolatrous of God to appear in bodily form on Earth, well, there's nothing in Scripture stating that it actually is. Someone could mistakenly believe that, but it's not an actual statement in Scripture. Thus, there is no contradiction. That is entirely different from the contradiction of God desiring all men to be saved.



Where does Scripture so clearly say that God desiring all men are saved is so contradictory, let alone idolatrous? This is precisely the point of debate. If the Scripture clearly said it, there wouldn't be debate. The issue is how we explain Scriptural verses, that *appear* to make contrary points, especially without doing violence to what the text actually says.

Blessings brother.


----------



## Confessor

JohnOwen007 said:


> Why? How can you claim to know what constitutes the maximal display of God's glory? That's quite an affirmation. For example, how can evil pertain to the maximal display of God's glory? If evil exists to display God's glory, then evil becomes an instrument of goodness, and as such becomes something good. But that can't be. This is the classic antinomy concerning evil and God's glory, which again, we can't explain by our finititude, and must stand in awe before the transcendent God.



Honestly, it's not that large of an affirmation, as God has revealed it to us Himself. If something did not ultimately glorify God, then God would not let it occur. As Manley said, this world is the most possible God-glorifying of all worlds. Therefore, it follows that whatever occurs is maximally God-glorifying, including evil. Everything fits into God's plan.



> Where does Scripture so clearly say that God desiring all men are saved is so contradictory, let alone idolatrous? This is precisely the point of debate. If the Scripture clearly said it, there wouldn't be debate. The issue is how we explain Scriptural verses, that *appear* to make contrary points, especially without doing violence to what the text actually says.



Seeing the premise that everything which occurs must be maximally God-glorifying (that is, ultimately), and the fact that universalism does not occur, it follows that universalism is not maximally God-glorifying. If God were to desire this, then, He would be desiring something less than His maximal self-glorification which is, frankly, idolatry.

Honestly, there is no getting around it. It's a very simple logical deduction. It's not humble or pious to try to say, "No, you can't say that," when the premises are clear and the would-be contradiction is so blatantly evident.

Of course, if you want to dispute that this world is maximally God-glorifying, more so than any other possible world, then several other problems arise regarding God's sovereignty and goodness.



> Blessings brother.



Likewise.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ectypal theology still maintains the analogia fidei and rules out the possibility of rational contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's precisely what I said. The contradiction is only apparent (just like the Trinity, the incarnation etc. etc.) not real.
Click to expand...


If God both desires and does not desire the salvation of the reprobate then the contradiction is real and not merely apparent. The Trinity and the Incarnation are beyond reason, but to say that God is A and non-A is a contradiction and goes against reason.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> If God both desires and does not desire the salvation of the reprobate then the contradiction is real and not merely apparent. The Trinity and the Incarnation are beyond reason, but to say that God is A and non-A is a contradiction and goes against reason.



Yes that would be true if the "desire" (better "will") to save and not to save were identical. However, they are not.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Confessor said:


> Honestly, it's not that large of an affirmation, as God has revealed it to us Himself. If something did not ultimately glorify God, then God would not let it occur. As Manley said, this world is the most possible God-glorifying of all worlds. Therefore, it follows that whatever occurs is maximally God-glorifying, including evil. Everything fits into God's plan.



Dear Brother Ben, this is not speaking to the problem at hand. The issue is whether we can predict / grasp what is God-glorifying. I used the illustration of evil to show how thinking about God's glory (because it relates to the infinite God) transcends human reason. Thus we must tread very carefully when using finite reason, especially if it goes beyond Scripture. We cannot always predict what is God-glorifying ultimately due to our finitude, and not least sin.



Confessor said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Scripture so clearly say that God desiring all men are saved is so contradictory, let alone idolatrous? This is precisely the point of debate. If the Scripture clearly said it, there wouldn't be debate. The issue is how we explain Scriptural verses, that *appear* to make contrary points, especially without doing violence to what the text actually says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing the premise that everything which occurs must be maximally God-glorifying (that is, ultimately), and the fact that universalism does not occur, it follows that universalism is not maximally God-glorifying. If God were to desire this, then, He would be desiring something less than His maximal self-glorification which is, frankly, idolatry. Honestly, there is no getting around it. It's a very simple logical deduction.
Click to expand...


Well, you didn't quote Scripture, only gave a syllogism. If this were a really critical issue, Scripture would speak explicitly about it. (And I think "God desires all people to be saved" [1 Tim. 2:4] and "I do not desire the death of a sinner" [Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11] to be pretty explicit). I struggle with both the major and the minor premise of your syllogism, and thus struggle with the conclusion.

*Major premise*: "everything which occurs must be maximally God-glorifying (that is, ultimately)". I struggle with what you mean by "maximally". Does Scripture speak in this way anywhere? If not, the premise can't stand. Indeed, to speak of "maximal" glory takes us back to the old 13th century debate about whether the world God created was the best of all possible options. Scripture never addresses it explicitly or by good and necessary consequences, and thus it is too speculative In my humble opinion. We need to give our attention to what's most important to Scripture, not our reason. Is "maximally" even a category that one can apply to God's glory? I suggest that it's better simply to speak of God being glorified, as Scripture does.

*Minor premise*: "universalism does not occur", I'm assuming that by this you mean all people aren't saved? I assume that there's a hidden premise here, that God has no desire (or "will") that isn't fulfilled. Depends on what one means by "will" here, because as you know, this is a multivalent word in Scripture. But, in short, I don't see Scripture teaching this.

*Conclusion*: "it follows that universalism is not maximally God-glorifying". Again, I have a problem with "maximally". Would it have been maximally as glorifying for a few more or less people to be saved on the last day? The question is roving in speculative realms, which God has not revealed and thus is not important in our current state. We need to be silent where Scripture is silent.



Confessor said:


> It's not humble or pious to try to say, "No, you can't say that," when the premises are clear and the would-be contradiction is so blatantly evident.



It can be very impious and arrogant to do that in certain circumstances. It's humble and pious to speak where Scripture speaks, and to be silent where Scripture is silent. Our finite human reason has severe limits when applied to the infinite God. It was, after all, the Socinians who denied the incarnation and Trinity in the name of a "would-be contradiction [that] is so blatantly evident".

My problem with your syllogism is that the Bible explicitly says "God desires all people to be saved" and "I do not desire the death of anyone" and hence you'd need very *VERY* good reasons to explain these statements away. You're not simply explaining them away, but calling them idolatrous. You may be right (and I don't think you are). However, if you're wrong it's unmitigated blasphemy--you are called God's own word "idolatrous".

God bless you Ben.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God both desires and does not desire the salvation of the reprobate then the contradiction is real and not merely apparent. The Trinity and the Incarnation are beyond reason, but to say that God is A and non-A is a contradiction and goes against reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that would be true if the "desire" (better "will") to save and not to save were identical. However, they are not.
Click to expand...


If there is a distinction in the "desire" then it ought to be stated in a manner which does not throw the subject into confusion. To date, the language to express both ideas has been the same, thereby indicating contradictory statements.


----------



## Confessor

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, you didn't quote Scripture, only gave a syllogism. If this were a really critical issue, Scripture would speak explicitly about it. (And I think "God desires all people to be saved" [1 Tim. 2:4] and "I do not desire the death of a sinner" [Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11] to be pretty explicit). I struggle with both the major and the minor premise of your syllogism, and thus struggle with the conclusion.



I honestly see those verses as no problem.

In the context of 1 Timothy 2, we see the Paul exhorts the recipient(s) of the letter to pray for all those in authority, including kings and everyone reigning over us (vv.1-2). Paul includes this class of people as not outside the scope of God or God's love, "for God wants all men to be saved." That is, God sees no distinction between rulers or commoners; He wants all men _without distinction_, rather than without exception, or all men _indiscriminately_, rather than individually, to be saved. This is completely compatible with high Calvinism.

Ezekiel 18:23 is simply speaking about death. Certainly God takes pleasure in the justice of damnation -- if this were not obvious enough intuitively, look at chapters such as Isaiah 63 or Romans 9. Ezekiel is simply establishing that death _per se_, i.e. without reference to other factors, is averse to God. God is not some raving lunatic demon who can prefer death at a whim. He is a God of life -- but it doesn't mean that He is not a God of infinite justice, or that He is not altogether pleased with the just damnation of wicked men.

Regarding a biblical basis for my argument, it's actually rather simple:

--"Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). If God could not do whatever He pleased to do, He would be impotent.
--Therefore, whatever comes about is what God _desires_ to come about.
--Universalism does not come about -- i.e., all men are not saved. This should be extremely evident for the Bible.
--Therefore, God never desired that universalism could save.

(I could insert God's self-glorification in the syllogism, but it provides an unnecessary "loop.")

Also, trying to place universalism in the category of God's preceptive will is a category error. It is a decree, not a precept.



JohnOwen007 said:


> *Major premise*: "everything which occurs must be maximally God-glorifying (that is, ultimately)". I struggle with what you mean by "maximally". Does Scripture speak in this way anywhere? If not, the premise can't stand. Indeed, to speak of "maximal" glory takes us back to the old 13th century debate about whether the world God created was the best of all possible options. Scripture never addresses it explicitly or by good and necessary consequences, and thus it is too speculative In my humble opinion. We need to give our attention to what's most important to Scripture, not our reason. Is "maximally" even a category that one can apply to God's glory? I suggest that it's better simply to speak of God being glorified, as Scripture does.



Our own reason is the only way to understand Scripture. And while it may be inherently dangerous to speculate too far from Scripture, I don't see this to be one of those instances.

If God does all that He desires to do (from above), and if He desires to have His glory displayed, and if He is omnipotent, then He will certainly display Himself as much as possible (i.e., _maximally_) in whatever He does. He has no want of power or motivation to do so, and therefore it will occur.



JohnOwen007 said:


> *Minor premise*: "universalism does not occur", I'm assuming that by this you mean all people aren't saved? I assume that there's a hidden premise here, that God has no desire (or "will") that isn't fulfilled. Depends on what one means by "will" here, because as you know, this is a multivalent word in Scripture. But, in short, I don't see Scripture teaching this.



 It's not hidden; it's in Psalm 115:3, etc.



JohnOwen007 said:


> It can be very impious and arrogant to do that in certain circumstances. It's humble and pious to speak where Scripture speaks, and to be silent where Scripture is silent. Our finite human reason has severe limits when applied to the infinite God. It was, after all, the Socinians who denied the incarnation and Trinity in the name of a "would-be contradiction [that] is so blatantly evident".



There is a stark, qualitative difference between the Socinians and high Calvinists. In the former, they are trying to impose restraints applying to our world on a foreign realm. That is illogical and involves a false induction. In the latter, we are imposing restraints applying to the same realm, which is perfectly reasonable -- unless you believe that "desire" means something entirely different for God than for man, maybe some weird anthropomorphism. If you believe this is the case, you would have to provide a robust defense for the proposition and against a corollary skepticism (since divine revelation would essentially not mean what it says).


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Ben,



Confessor said:


> In the context of 1 Timothy 2, we see the Paul exhorts the recipient(s) of the letter to pray for all those in authority, including kings and everyone reigning over us (vv.1-2). Paul includes this class of people as not outside the scope of God or God's love, "for God wants all men to be saved." That is, God sees no distinction between rulers or commoners; He wants all men _without distinction_, rather than without exception, or all men _indiscriminately_, rather than individually, to be saved. This is completely compatible with high Calvinism.



Yes, this is a popular reading. However, it doesn't pay close enough attention to the context. The purpose (_hina_) that Paul ostensibly gives for praying for "Kings and all those in authority" is so that "we may live peaceful and quiet lives ...". In other words, pray for rulers that they would govern in such a way that would lead to Christians living peacefully. Why? Because this is the environment for the gospel to be spread: "peaceful lives ... this is good and pleasing to God our saviour, who wants all people to be saved".

The word "all" here litters the passage, "first of all" ... "all people" (v. 1), "all those in authority" (v. 2), "all godliness" (v. 3), "all people" (v. 4), "on behalf of all" (v. 6), "all places / everywhere" (v. 8), "all submission" (v. 11). It wouldn't make sense for these "all"(s) to refer to "some". Does Paul want Christians not to live in "all godliness" but some "godliness" (v. 3), or Paul want "all" Christian men, but only some, to lift up holy hands in prayer? "All" here in context most likely is all-inclusive.



Confessor said:


> Regarding a biblical basis for my argument, it's actually rather simple:



No, you actually don't quote a verse which speaks *directly *to the issue. Again, you use (spurious) reasoning that the Bible doesn't give us the right to follow.



Confessor said:


> --"Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). If God could not do whatever He pleased to do, He would be impotent.



Agreed.



Confessor said:


> --Therefore, whatever comes about is what God _desires_ to come about.



Perhaps, but this needs qualification. Evil occurs, does God then desire the evil that occurs?



Confessor said:


> --Universalism does not come about -- i.e., all men are not saved. This should be extremely evident for the Bible.
> --Therefore, God never desired that universalism could save.



"Universalism" is an ambiguous word. I don't know why you've introduced it here. It is used in theological literature to mean that all people _will_ be saved.

However, in Scripture there are many many meanings to the word "will" (_thelein_). But, you appear to be using it in only one sense. The will/desire which God has for the salvation of the elect, may well be different to the will/desire that he has that they would be saved, but are not.

Your reasoning could be used to prove this point:

Major premise: Whatever God desires comes about.
Minor premise: A husband beats his wife.
Conclusion: Therefore God desires a husband to beat his wife.



Confessor said:


> Our own reason is the only way to understand Scripture. And while it may be inherently dangerous to speculate too far from Scripture, I don't see this to be one of those instances.



Yes, but your reasons for this are wanting. When we talk about God, we are talking about something transrational. Hence, to think we can predict exactly how God is glorified (a topic which directly relates to God) is also transrational. Thus, I don't want to start using syllogisms about this, unless I can find the actual reasoning in Scripture. That's the point you don't seem to get.



Confessor said:


> It's not hidden; it's in Psalm 115:3, etc.



Psalm 115:3 doesn't directly address the question at hand. It speaks of God's "will" in _one _sense.



Confessor said:


> There is a stark, qualitative difference between the Socinians and high Calvinists. In the former, they are trying to impose restraints applying to our world on a foreign realm. That is illogical and involves a false induction. In the latter, we are imposing restraints applying to the same realm,



Again, I have to disagree with your reasoning. When we speak of God we are speaking of a different realm to the created order. He is infinite, the creation is finite. We are made in his image, and thus can only conceive of him analogically not identically, otherwise we'd be God. This has been the universal position of Western theology pre and post the reformation.



JohnOwen007 said:


> which is perfectly reasonable -- unless you believe that "desire" means something entirely different for God than for man, maybe some weird anthropomorphism. If you believe this is the case, you would have to provide a robust defense for the proposition and against a corollary skepticism (since divine revelation would essentially not mean what it says).



God's "will/desire" cannot be identical to ours. If it was identical we'd cross the creator / creature divide and be idolatrous. God's "desire/will" is analogous to ours. It is similar but not identical. It has similarities and differences.

Have you ever read the reformed tradition on archetypal and ectypal knowledge of God? Our knowledge of God is a ectypal--a finite replica of God's own archetypal (and infinite) knowledge of himself.

Can I recommend that you read (for example) Cornelius Van Til on analogical reasoning at this point, perhaps his _Introduction to Systematic Theology_, or even John Frame's explication of it in _Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought_.

All God's blessing to you brother Ben.


----------



## Confessor

JohnOwen007 said:


> It wouldn't make sense for these "all"(s) to refer to "some".



It does, however, make sense for it to refer to all men _indiscriminately_. Is it really wrong for Paul to say that God wants all types of men to be saved and then say that we should be godly? Does the word "all" have to have the same meaning wherever it is used in the Bible? That seems a bit unfair. It is pretty clear that the "all" which God desires to be saved cannot plausibly be referring to everyone without exception. There is not sufficient evidence to claim that I am obliged to interpret the "all men" in that passage as such.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Perhaps, but this needs qualification. Evil occurs, does God then desire the evil that occurs?



In a sense, yes, God does absolutely desire all evil that occurs. He doesn't desire it as evil, but He desires it in the mosaic of providence. "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief..." (Isaiah 53:10).



JohnOwen007 said:


> "Universalism" is an ambiguous word. I don't know why you've introduced it here. It is used in theological literature to mean that all people _will_ be saved.



Well, that is exactly what you're saying God desires. Apparently, you are claiming that God desires that all _actually_ be saved, but that He decrees that a few _actually_ will be saved. What other kind of desire would you be referring to? "Universalism" works fine here.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Your reasoning could be used to prove this point:
> 
> Major premise: Whatever God desires comes about.
> Minor premise: A husband beats his wife.
> Conclusion: Therefore God desires a husband to beat his wife.



This doesn't mean that God prefers husbands beating their wives _as a general precept_, nor does it mean that the husband will not be punished, but it does absolutely mean that God desired for that specific husband to beat his specific wife at a specific time. "Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?" (Lam. 3:37). I'm sorry, but this is frankly Arminian reasoning. "God would never want _that_!"

Universalism, on the other hand, cannot _possibly_ be a precept; that would be a category error, as it is a decree. It makes no sense to say that a decree can be present in God's preceptive will. This is an outright contradiction, and if we allow this then we must allow all types of illogical heresies to be interpreted into Scripture.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Thus, I don't want to start using syllogisms about this, unless I can find the actual reasoning in Scripture. That's the point you don't seem to get.



The problem here seems to be more that you just aren't convinced from what arises from Scripture, and you keep setting the bar for evidence higher. Frankly, it is obvious from the whole witness of Scripture that God acts for the purpose of displaying His own glory. It is also obvious that He does what He pleases. If you think I have too naively interpreted these passages, or I am being too sweeping with my deductions from them, then go ahead and correct me, but otherwise it seems like a fairly straightforward syllogism, making any counter-argument that I am being transrational quite a dogmatic and unfair claim.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Psalm 115:3 doesn't directly address the question at hand. It speaks of God's "will" in _one _sense.



Again, the distinction between God's decretive will and God's preceptive will only make sense if we're talking about _decrees_ and _precepts_, respectively. We cannot say that just any entity can fit into either category. Thus we cannot say that universalism is somehow a precept and therefore that God can desire it without effectuating it.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Again, I have to disagree with your reasoning. When we speak of God we are speaking of a different realm to the created order. He is infinite, the creation is finite. We are made in his image, and thus can only conceive of him analogically not identically, otherwise we'd be God. This has been the universal position of Western theology pre and post the reformation.



Be careful not to establish a disconnect so large that skepticism ensues. True, statements about God are analogical, but it doesn't follow that we can't make any healthy deductions from them. If we try to press the analogy to the point that _everything_ we say cannot really mean what it means for God, and if we try to say that any reasoning about God is inherently transrational and we are too prone to mistakes, then the corollary is that nothing but explicit statements from Scripture are valid; no deductions can be legit, because in such a case we would be using _univocal_ rather than analogical reasoning and thereby profaning God's transcendence. (This is absurd.) Moreover, if such were the case, we would not be able to state _anything_ about God accurately, because even the explicit claims of Scripture would end up having a completely different meaning than what we get from the text.

I believe in a sovereign God who has control of language and logic and has created them as a means to Him, not as some impossible barrier to cross. Sure, it is possible to misuse them, but we shouldn't stretch this fact to the point that we _can't_ use them. Otherwise whoever wants to can dictate what exactly counts as a humble rational deduction and what counts as an arrogant transrational one. I have established a clear criterion to make this distinction.



JohnOwen007 said:


> God's "will/desire" cannot be identical to ours. If it was identical we'd cross the creator / creature divide and be idolatrous. God's "desire/will" is analogous to ours. It is similar but not identical. It has similarities and differences.



Is one of the differences that we cannot apply logic to God's claims about Himself?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Ben,

You have a confidence in your answers that isn't commensurate with our tradition.



Confessor said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't make sense for these "all"(s) to refer to "some".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...] There is not sufficient evidence to claim that I am obliged to interpret the "all men" in that passage as such.
Click to expand...


Well your certainity may be a bit premature, both Calvin and Owen (not to mention Poole, Trapp, and Henry) all believed that the "all" was absolutely everyone.

Moreover, I'll leave you to learn some principles of exegesis and some Greek, before you continue to make such confident judgements on this passage. Try at least reading a few commentaries from experts (like Towner) to see that your ground is not so sure.



Confessor said:


> Well, that is exactly what you're saying God desires. Apparently, you are claiming that God desires that all _actually_ be saved, but that He decrees that a few _actually_ will be saved. What other kind of desire would you be referring to? "Universalism" works fine here.



Ben, please read my above posts (especially to Armourbearer) and you'll see you're putting words in my mouth.



Confessor said:


> This doesn't mean that God prefers husbands beating their wives _as a general precept_, nor does it mean that the husband will not be punished, but it does absolutely mean that God desired for that specific husband to beat his specific wife at a specific time. "Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?" (Lam. 3:37). I'm sorry, but this is frankly Arminian reasoning. "God would never want _that_!"



O my word!!!! Did you really say the above? So God desires evil! What the ...? Isn't God absolutely holy? How can he desire evil, even at a specific time?

To say that God desires evil at any point is pure blasphemy.

Dear brother Ben, the verse you cite in no way backs up your point. (Again, please learn some principles of exegesis, especially when reading Hebrew poetry). You need to think this one more carefully through before you say anymore about it. When God's sovereignty encompasses evil, it's *not *because he desires evil, but the God-glorifying *effects *of the evil.

I *plead *with you to read Henri Blocher's book _Evil and the Cross_ before you say anymore to anyone in this topic.



Confessor said:


> Frankly, it is obvious from the whole witness of Scripture that God acts for the purpose of displaying His own glory. It is also obvious that He does what He pleases. If you think I have too naively interpreted these passages, or I am being too sweeping with my deductions from them, then go ahead and correct me, but otherwise it seems like a fairly straightforward syllogism, making any counter-argument that I am being transrational quite a dogmatic and unfair claim.



Again, you've put words in my mouth. I completely affirm that God does everything for his glory. I've never said the contrary. What I objected to was your adjective "maximal". That word and concept (however one could apply it to God's glory!?) isn't in Scripture and opens a can of worms.



Confessor said:


> Thus we cannot say that universalism is somehow a precept and therefore that God can desire it without effectuating it.



Owen and Calvin both differ with you. That's because you're trying to make language function like logic. It doesn't work that way. This has been proved time and again by Speech Act Theory. Language doesn't just convey information but also does something. The person to read about this is Kevin Vanhoozer.



Confessor said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's "will/desire" cannot be identical to ours. If it was identical we'd cross the creator / creature divide and be idolatrous. God's "desire/will" is analogous to ours. It is similar but not identical. It has similarities and differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is one of the differences that we cannot apply logic to God's claims about Himself?
Click to expand...


When we take *all *that Scripture says about God, we must be careful discover the reasoning actually *in *Scripture itself about God, and resist reasoning in ways Scripture never mentions.

Every blessing to you brother.


----------



## BJClark

Bob;



> ]A fascinating observation of this question is that it really does come from sentiment and a sentiment so strong that we feel defensive about it and try to save God's nice guy image.
> 
> Fact is, this question should be the problem of the arminian. If they really want to push the idea that God desires no one to be lost then they are defending a god who is weak and can't accomplish what he wants. This is called open theism and it's most notable supporter is Clark Pinnock.
> 
> This question really points to the weakness of arminianism. A weakling god is the only intellectually honest conclusion that one can draw if they answer in the affirmative (to the original post).
> 
> If someone asks you a question like this, you need to first show them that there is a bigger question at stake then the freewill of man. It's also easy to demonstrate that the arminian is putting sentiment above a good hermeneutic.



That is my problem with this question..it makes God out to be weak and if He is weak and unable to do one thing..why should anyone of us trust Him to be able to save and keep any of us??

To me, it takes away from who He is as God.


----------



## Confessor

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well your certainity may be a bit premature, both Calvin and Owen (not to mention Poole, Trapp, and Henry) all believed that the "all" was absolutely everyone.
> 
> Moreover, I'll leave you to learn some principles of exegesis and some Greek, before you continue to make such confident judgements on this passage. Try at least reading a few commentaries from experts (like Towner) to see that your ground is not so sure.



Will do.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Ben, please read my above posts (especially to Armourbearer) and you'll see you're putting words in my mouth.



Can you pinpoint which posts specifically?



JohnOwen007 said:


> O my word!!!! Did you really say the above? So God desires evil! What the ...? Isn't God absolutely holy? How can he desire evil, even at a specific time?
> 
> To say that God desires evil at any point is pure blasphemy.
> 
> Dear brother Ben, the verse you cite in no way backs up your point. (Again, please learn some principles of exegesis, especially when reading Hebrew poetry). You need to think this one more carefully through before you say anymore about it. When God's sovereignty encompasses evil, it's *not *because he desires evil, but the God-glorifying *effects *of the evil.



Please calm down. I never said that God desires evil _qua_ evil; in fact, I was pretty explicit in this, since I said that God never desires evil as a precept. Desiring something as a precept would be to desire it as itself, at least to an extent, and I said that God never desires evil as a precept.

"*Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him*; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (Isa. 53:10).



JohnOwen007 said:


> Owen and Calvin both differ with you. That's because you're trying to make language function like logic. It doesn't work that way. This has been proved time and again by Speech Act Theory. Language doesn't just convey information but also does something. The person to read about this is Kevin Vanhoozer.



I'm not sure how this is even a counter-argument. Are you implying that logical contradictions can occur in language, but that they aren't real logical contradictions? I'll stand by my argument that "God desires all men individually to be saved" is a category error.


----------

