# Do God's secret and revealed will conflict



## larryjf (Nov 1, 2006)

I was thinking about this question, and i wanted to ask...
If God's revealed will is "thou shalt not kill," yet in His secret will He has decreed that people kill, aren't the two wills in conflict?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 1, 2006)

Seriously - great question.

I asked it too.

After 550 pages, I think the answer is one of hermeneutics. Here is what I came up with....

http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/TwoWills.htm


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 1, 2006)

Hi Larry,

Yes it is often difficult to reconcile God's revealed will with his providence (hence Matt's 500 pages!).

The traditional Reformed answer is to turn to Deut 29:29. We're not to enquire into the hidden things. We're only to enquire into the revealed things. 

The short answer is this: That because we cannot square what God permits/decrees with what he tells us to do does not mean that they cannot be reconciled. It simply means that God is transcendent, infinite, simple, immutable, and immense and we are none of these. If we think of it, it shouldn't surprise us that there are a great number of things we cannot explain! 

Scripture takes a dim view (in the books of Job and Romans) of attempts to bring God to the bar of our conception of justice.

rsc



larryjf said:


> I was thinking about this question, and i wanted to ask...
> If God's revealed will is "thou shalt not kill," yet in His secret will He has decreed that people kill, aren't the two wills in conflict?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

Looks like an interesting book Matt. I am expecting to receive the “Everything on One DVD” from A Puritan’s Mind soon, so i will have plenty to read for a while, but when i need more reading material i will certainly check out a few of your books. 

Yes, the secret things of God plays a big part with this question.

I guess this could also lead to the question of if there are only 2 wills from our standpoint, but within God there is really only one will as there is no division within Him. In that sense there could be no conflict. But from our perspective there is a conflict. 

But there is only a conflict from our perspective when looking at it in a certain way i guess. God's revealed will tells us to be holy, His secret will has permitted sin, but even in His secret will He is against sin. So it's never that He condones it or is happy with it, and in that sense there is no contradiction.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> I was thinking about this question, and i wanted to ask...
> If God's revealed will is "thou shalt not kill," yet in His secret will He has decreed that people kill, aren't the two wills in conflict?



The second part first. It is not a secret that God ordains all things - God wills that murder, rape, etc. happen and are all according to God's sovereign will. The only "secrete" is God does not tell us the particulars in advance. We don't know who God wills to kill and who He wills to obey the law. It is less confusing to say God "ordains" rather than God "wills". 

Now the first part. God does not ordain that we obey his law. Whether we obey or not obey is according to God's plan. So this use of the term "will" has a different meaning. It is less that God wills that we obey than God commands us to obey. And this means simply that disobedience has a penalty or cost. We sin by disobeying God's laws. But we can only sin ultimately if God wills it. 

Notice I avoid using the word "want". I think we tend to think of "want" and "desire" in human terms - as to desire something we don't have or may not get. But God's will is always done, on earth as it is in heaven. He does not want what He does not have. What God wants is what God accomplishes. Nothing more and nothing less. God willed that we sin and the Jesus died on the cross, that some will be declared righteous and some will parish (Rom 9:22-23). 

I think some of the confusion comes from the belief that God has passions like we do. But an eternal, immutable, timeless being, can not have passions. (WCF 2.1) Passions are temporal - they come and go. They are chemically induced. The emotions ascribed to God are no different than speaking of God's eyes and breath and hands. For God, wanting is getting. What God wills is no less than what was, is, and shall be. 

I think the phrases "revealed will" and "secret will" are not only confusing but misleading. On one hand, God was revealed that sin and evil are preordained. God hardened the heat of Pharaoh (Exo 9:12) and keep the sons of Eli in their wickedness because he "wanted to kill them" (1Sa 2:25). So much for this being a secret. And since the word "will" is not used univocally (even though qualified) - this further confuses the problem. It seems to (in effect) say that God is self-contradicting. This is a paradox we can avoid all together. We don't have to embrace it, or give up. We can simply say - "well that was a bad idea, let's try again". 

(That my 2 cents and change.)


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 2, 2006)

> Passions are temporal - they come and go. They are chemically induced.



Anthony, where did you get this from, that passions are chemically induced? Not the WCF, not the Bible, where?


The simple answer is God is not under the law, man is. Man can never judge God. God and only God can judge and punish a man justly. Man is responsible to God because God has made him responsible. God IS justice and answers to no one.

God told Abraham to kill his son. It would have been immoral not to kill his son for he would have to go against the Word/Law of God. Had Abraham killed his son apart from God's Word then it would have been murder. If God were capricious then we would be justified in searching for a conflict, but God is Holy and in him there is no conflict.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Nov 2, 2006)

> For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> 
> For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.



Isaiah 55:8-9 (AV)​


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 2, 2006)

jaybird0827 said:


> Isaiah 55:8-9 (AV)​


Isa 55 and other such passages are essential to accounting for the biblical doctrine of divine-human relations and to the problem of theodicy, which is one of the subsidiary questions. 

The Reformed orthodox developed an elaborate causal account of how God is the sovereign first cause of all that happens and still not morally liable for the sin and evil that occurs. They focused on second or proximate causes. There is real use in this, but I contend that we cannot fully account for the problem of evil and that we risk doing significant damage to the faith by pretending to offer a _resolution_ to the problem of evil. Invariably something will be lost. Whatever difficulty we might have with the problem of evil, God the Son became incarnate and faced the evil of this world, the evil we've done, and conquered it by his obedience, death, and resurrection. 

The truth is that all revelation is analogical. God reveals himself as having "emotion" so we must reckon that there is truth in the analogy, yet we know from Scripture that God does not change. We know that he does not move from one experience to another. He is not mutable. Can we say how God experiences emotion? No. 

Does Scripture offer a comprehensive account or solution to the problem of evil? No. God gave us the book of Job! He gave us a story teaching us how to think about it and how not to think about it. Shaking the fist is out. Demanding answers is out. Calling God to account is forbidden. We have to humble ourselves before divine revelation and the divine majesty and transcendence. 

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 2, 2006)

One thing John Owen said was that Scripture never equates or combines necessarily the secret and revelaed will. They work on completely different planes. One is viewed as macro, the other viewed as micro. Edwards called this is "narrow lense" and the "wide-angle lense". Same idea.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

BobVigneault said:


> Anthony, where did you get this from, that passions are chemically induced? Not the WCF, not the Bible, where?



Mainly from the fact that God is without passions and is without a body (WCF 2.1). The rest comes from observation that emotions can be induced or suppressed chemically (anti-depression pills, cocaine, ecstasy). Also brain damage can change the emotions. And finally - we physically feel emotions. It's in our brains, but we literally and physically feel it when we are scared, angry, euphoric. We seen how these feelings are caused by chemicals we produce internal or introduce by drugs - endorphins, adrenalin, etc. God does not have a body so he does not have emotions like we do. 

When God is angry, it doesn't mean he suddenly feels the psychological changes that we do. He is not driven by brain chemicals that make him prone to irrational decisions. God does not go though temporal emotional change his mind or have passions. What God's being angry means is that _we_ have changed in relationship to God, that we are being disobedient or sinful and God is going to correct us (or worse send us to hell) if we don't get back to the narrow path. But it's not like we upset God and hurt his feelings. God already knows what we will do next - so nothing is a surprise, and he is not reacting to some unforeseen situation. God does not really change in any way - he changes us and our situation relative to him.


----------



## Theogenes (Nov 2, 2006)

Brethren,
Isn't it better to use the phrases "will of command" and "will of decree"?? God's will of decree is never violated but His will of command is broken by all of us many times a day, but even all of that breaking of His will of command is according to His will of decree for His glory according to His eternal plan.
For a very compelling resolution to the problem of evil I highly recommend Gordon Clark's book "God and Evil". 
I also disagree that all revelation is analogical. (Since I'm a Clarkian!) And remember, that all analogies must have an univocal element or you won't know what is meant by the analogy.
Jim


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

BobVigneault said:


> The simple answer is God is not under the law, man is. Man can never judge God. God and only God can judge and punish a man justly. Man is responsible to God because God has made him responsible. God IS justice and answers to no one.
> 
> God told Abraham to kill his son. It would have been immoral not to kill his son for he would have to go against the Word/Law of God. Had Abraham killed his son apart from God's Word then it would have been murder. If God were capricious then we would be justified in searching for a conflict, but God is Holy and in him there is no conflict.



  You are correct. This is the answer. The problem of evil is _easily_ solved by Scripture. God made man responsible to the law. God made the law to have consequences for those how disobey - and penalty only applies to those who are under the law - man. 

Those who object are objecting because they want a man-made definition of responsible - that one is responsible for only the things one does (or has the ability to prevent) and nothing more. But responsibility is not biblically dependent on causality (and secondary or primary cause does not solve the issue with that definition) or having the power to do otherwise. Responsibility depends only on God being the one who makes man responsible for the penalty of sin, both the ones a man causes personally, and the sins of his fathers, and the sin of Adam. And God made Jesus responsible for the penalty of the sins of the elect. Again, Jesus did not sin, but he was made responsible for paying the penalty of sin because _only_ man is under the law- not God. Only a man can be made responsible for the penalty of sins. 


God has given us the answers he wants us to know - and he has not given us _any_ answers that are contradictory (like the concept of secrete and reveled will).


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

I do like some of what Charles Hodge says about the subject...

"God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may...decree to permit what He forbids."

"A positive decretive will cannot consist with a negative preceptive will; i.e., God cannot decree to make men sin. But a negative decretive will may consist with an affirmative preceptive will; e.g., God may command men to repent and believe, and yet, ... abstain from giving them repentance."

I also like a distinction between what each is founded upon that Hodge brings to the table...

"The one referring to his decrees, founded on his good pleasure; the other to his commands, founded on what He approves or disapproves."


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

Jim Snyder said:


> Brethren,
> Isn't it better to use the phrases "will of command" and "will of decree"?? God's will of decree is never violated but His will of command is broken by all of us many times a day, but even all of that breaking of His will of command is according to His will of decree for His glory according to His eternal plan.
> For a very compelling resolution to the problem of evil I highly recommend Gordon Clark's book "God and Evil".
> I also disagree that all revelation is analogical. (Since I'm a Clarkian!) And remember, that all analogies must have an univocal element or you won't know what is meant by the analogy.
> Jim



Why must we say "_will_ of command". "Command" is sufficient. And it allows we do not violate God's _will _when we sin, we violate God's _commands_. The will of God is inviolable. We regularly break God's commands. What is the gain from saying God _wills _us to obey?


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 2, 2006)

Scripture always gives us simple answers but what would the Puritan Board be without our signature method of 'abstruse obfuscation'?


Eschew obfuscation???? NEVER!!!!!!!


----------



## Theogenes (Nov 2, 2006)

Civbert,
You're right! "Will" dosen't add anything helpful. Command or Decree is enough. I should have put on my Occam's razor glasses!
Jim


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> I do like some of what Charles Hodge says about the subject...
> 
> "God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may...decree to permit what He forbids."
> 
> ...



I think Hodge is all wet here. God does decree that men sin. God decreed that Jesus was crucified. God decreed that Adam would fall. I think this attempt to excuse God by saying God "permits" is very weak. It does nothing to relieve God of being responsible because God allows what he could have prevented. If I allow a child to burn in a fire, who I could have easily pulled out of the firer, I'm I not responsible? 

The only reason God is not responsible for the child burning in the firer is that only man can be held responsible for sin and evil - because God has made things that way. We should quite make excuses and admit that merely permitting evil, or not being the first cause of evil, is no solution to the problem of evil. The problem is we don't like the fact that God ordains all events - even the sins we commit and the evil we do, and the harm that comes to babies. Well, get over it. God is not answerable to us. We are answerable to God. 



> Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
> 
> (Rom 9:18-24)



We seem to want to make excuses for God making us the way we are. It isn't fair! We think that what's fair is that no one can make us responsible for something we did not do, or could not prevent. Well get over it! That's not the biblical definition of responsibility. We are responsible because God saw fit to make us responsible. We are sinners because God saw fit to make men as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". You may say "well it flies in the face of fairness". Tough! Stop making excuses for God doing things you don't think is fair for you. Let the Bible tell you the way things are and be thankful that God would even consider loving you who he decided to create a sinner. Just read Romans 9 and swallow your pride and sense that God owes you a fair shake or an even break. God doesn't love anyone according to our sense of fairness. Attempts to make excuses for God is just a sign that we are not happy with the way God did things.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

BobVigneault said:


> Eschew obfuscation???? NEVER!!!!!!!




Hooray! You don't know how long I've been trying to remember that phrase. I saw it in a needle point sign (maybe in a movie) and thought it was great! But I could never remember the first word. My memory was close, but a combination of uncertain memory and poor spelling has frustrated me from figuring out that the word was "eschew", and not askew.

I'm going to copy it in several places on my computer and PPC and print a copy with big letters to hang on my wall. 

*Eschew obfuscation!*​

Thanks! I have finally found my all-time favorite ironic phrase. You have made me a happy camper indeed!


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

Civbert,

Hodge says that God will not Himself go against His prescribed will or cause others to go against it. Are you saying that God does cause men to sin? Is God the cause of sin?

He even gives an example, "God cannot decree to make men sin." Are you saying that God does make men sin?

What are your thoughts on the foundations he claims lies behind the 2 wills? The decretive being founded on His good pleasure, and the prescriptive being founded on His commands (what He approves and disapproves of).


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 2, 2006)

That's why the Puritan Board is here Anthony - to improve you life and hack your theology. Blessings.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 2, 2006)

Civbert said:


> Why must we say "_will_ of command". "Command" is sufficient. And it allows we do not violate God's _will _when we sin, we violate God's _commands_. The will of God is inviolable. We regularly break God's commands. What is the gain from saying God _wills _us to obey?


 


Jim Snyder said:


> Civbert,
> You're right! "Will" dosen't add anything helpful. Command or Decree is enough. I should have put on my Occam's razor glasses!
> Jim


 

There is a benefit to using "will" in the decreative sense, mainly because the Scriptures use "will" to describe God's commands/law as well as his decree:

Psa 143:10 Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Your Spirit is good. Lead me in the land of uprightness. 

Psa 40:8 I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your law is within my heart." 

Mat 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. 

Heb 10:7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come; In the volume of the book it is written of Me; To do Your will, O God.'" Heb 10:8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 
Heb 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Civbert,
> 
> Hodge says that God will not Himself go against His prescribed will or cause others to go against it. Are you saying that God does cause men to sin? Is God the cause of sin?
> 
> ...


 

It is the reformed position that God is the first cause of all things.

This has been discussed in length here , here, here, and here .

Below is one of my posts that I think is helpful:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=195222&postcount=18


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

Jeff,

From the link you gave:


> The reformed tradition has usually referred to God as the ultimate "cause" of all things, hence the distinction between first causes (God) and second causes (the means).


Do you agree then, that God does not directly cause man to sin, but 
uses secondary causes to do so, even though God is the ultimate cause of sin?


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Hodge says that God will not Himself go against His prescribed will or cause others to go against it. Are you saying that God does cause men to sin? Is God the cause of sin?



That's because Hodge has described Gods commands as God's will. God can not go against his own will. Nor can man. But all events are God's will. So if a man sins, it's God's will that he sins. 



larryjf said:


> He even gives an example, "God cannot decree to make men sin." Are you saying that God does make men sin?


God has decreed that men sin - therefore men sin. Adding the term "make" does not change anything. If you say God makes men sin, or God decrees men sin, it is all the same. It is God's will that men sin. 




larryjf said:


> What are your thoughts on the foundations he claims lies behind the 2 wills? The decretive being founded on His good pleasure, and the prescriptive being founded on His commands (what He approves and disapproves of).



I say that it is confusing to use the term will in both cases. Where in Scripture does it say God has two wills? I'd like to know because I think the two wills formulation does not make sense of the situation. Why say God wants us not to sin. Just say God commands us not to sin. God clearly wants some men to continue in sin. And God often intervenes directly to keep men in sin, just as he must intervene to bring men out of sin. 

I think the concept of prescribed will or decretive will does nothing to relieve God of the responsibility for sin and evil if responsibility comes from being the cause or reason for sin and evil. It's all an attempt to reconcile our notion of what responsibility entails, and the state of the world God has created. We want to hang on to our conception of responsibility meaning "having the power to do otherwise" instead of conceding that God determines who may be held responsible for sin and evil. If God kills someone, he does not sin. That God decreed that Judas betray Christ, that does not relieve Judas of being responsible for it. Judas is responsible because God commands that men are responsible for the sins they commit - even though they could not have done otherwise. We don't like it, because we want to maintain some independence from God. We want to either be free from God's sovereign decrees or be excused from sin because it seems only fair. We are still crying ""Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Rom 9:19)


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

> Where in Scripture does it say God has two wills?


Don't these Scriptures point to two wills of God...

Prescriptive:
_"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but *the one who does the will of my Father* who is in heaven. (Mat 7:21)
_

Decretive:
_In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who *works all things according to the counsel of his will*, (Eph 1:11)
_


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> There is a benefit to using "will" in the decreative sense, mainly because the Scriptures use "will" to describe God's commands/law as well as his decree:
> 
> Psa 143:10 Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Your Spirit is good. Lead me in the land of uprightness.
> 
> ...



Thanks Jeff. I can better understand the motive for speaking of two wills. We agree that Scripture uses will in two senses. It seems clear that the "will" in Psalms means specifically God's commands (not God's want/need for us to obey). And in the case of Mathew - it is a declaration of God's sovereignty over all things. (Or it could be a request that we are made more obedient to his law.) Heb is compatible with sovereign will - the will that ordained Christ's crucification. 

I think we are seeing the reason we need systematic theology - to make it clear what Scripture is saying and not saying, and the logical implications of our doctrine. The "two wills" doctrine is poor systematic theology since it can imply that God wills contradictory things. Good systematic theology makes it clear that the biblical term "will" often means simply the commands given by God in the Law. And at other times, it means the sovereign will of God to ordain all events thought-out history, and mans total dependence on God's will for his salvation or damnation. But we should not incorporate into systematic theology a "double willed God" and write it off as a mystery. 

But I am getting deeper into opinion and Jeff has shown me _again _there is more for me to learn. Thanks Jeff.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

> I think we are seeing the reason we need systematic theology - to make it clear what Scripture is saying and not saying, and the logical implications of our doctrine. The "two wills" doctrine is poor systematic theology since it can imply that God wills contradictory things. Good systematic theology makes it clear that the biblical term "will" often means simply the commands given by God in the Law. And at other times, it means the sovereign will of God to ordain all events thought-out history, and mans total dependence on God's will for his salvation or damnation. But we should not incorporate into systematic theology a "double willed God" and write it off as a mystery.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Don't these Scriptures point to two wills of God...


 No. It points to the word "will" having two different meanings. 


larryjf said:


> Prescriptive:
> _"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but *the one who does the will of my Father* who is in heaven. (Mat 7:21)
> _


 Here will means the Law (love God and love your neighbor). When we do the will of God, we are doing God's law. 



larryjf said:


> Decretive:
> _In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who *works all things according to the counsel of his will*, (Eph 1:11)
> _


God's sovereignty over all things. All events happen according to the will of God, including the sinning of man. God even directly caused men to sin as Scripture demonstrates in many instances.

It's important to make this clear. When the same meaning applied to two occurrences of a single term in Scripture logically implies a contradiction, then you know the word can not have the same meaning in both cases. It is impossible for there to be two wills of God in the same sense and time and place. It is completely legitimate for Scripture to use the word "will" with different meanings at different times and places. 

There are two different meanings for the term "will", not two wills.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Jeff,
> 
> From the link you gave:
> 
> ...


 
Exactly!


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

Would 1 Tim 2:4 suggest that God doesn't decree or will everything that He desires?

_who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:4, NASB)
_


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Would 1 Tim 2:4 suggest that God doesn't decree or will everything that He desires?
> 
> _who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:4, NASB)
> _




I think the "all" is in contrast to "just those who are in our class or neighborhood". Paul is speaking about "... Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1Ti 1:20) who Paul believes God may redeem eventually, and he is also speaking about Kings like Alexander the Great (1Ti 2:1-2). Alexander the Great is may be the king implied in in contrast to Alexander the cooper smith (2Ti 4:14).

Read it in context and you should see what I mean.



> This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. _Therefore_ I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made _for all men_, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle--I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying--a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
> (1Ti 1:18-2:7)



So the context is two guys who Paul has kicked out to the church so that they might lean not to blaspheme. One of whom is named Alexander (and is a copper smith). And the context is also regarding kings and those of authority (like Alexander the Great) that we should also pray for. Why, because even though some now seem lost, God would have _all_ men (kings _and_ copper smiths) to "come to the knowledge of the truth" to be testified "in due time". So all men is referring to all kinds and classes of men who God will call to repentance in due time. Men such as lowly coppersmiths, and men of authority like kings. God's call goes out to all classes and kinds of men. And we are to prayer for all (kinds and classes of) men.

The Greek word translated "desires" is thelō; which means "to will" or "is willing". So the verse can be understood as: God "wills" or "is willing" all men to be saved. 

Notice it does not say he "desires all men might be saved. It says "wills all men to be saved. This is speaking of all the men _who are going to be _saved, not all men in general. All men _to be saved _are all men God wills to save. 

So when you read carefully, and look at the full context and the grammar and consider the history - this does not say God wishes that each and every man might be saved, it means more literally that it is God who wills all kinds of men to _be_ saved in due time. There is no doubt that all men to be saved, will be saved according to God's will, so the point must be who all the men are that God will save. They are both kings and copper smiths. Those who are in church fellowship now, and those that are now outside of fellowship. Eventually, whoever God wills to be save, will be. So we should not neglect to pray for them all.

(This is also why translations that are more literal and preserve the grammar are important. Several looser translations to not say "to be" saved. Some say "all men may have salvation". 

Some put a period at the end of verse 3 and make verse 4:


> God wants everyone to be saved and to know the whole truth, which is,
> (1Ti 2:4 CEV)



Here's a few more. Notice how the specific grammar can make a big difference:



> 1Ti 2:4
> 
> (ASV) who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Nov 2, 2006)

Civbert,

Thank you for that excellent response.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 2, 2006)

larryjf said:


> Civbert,
> 
> Thank you for that excellent response.



Thank you for motivating it. I enjoyed digging into the Word.


----------

