Does God Desire Every Man To Be Saved?
I have been personally convicted by reading James White’s The Potter’s Freedom that God does in fact not desire all men to be saved. This being said, I repent of my former conviction that there are two soteriological wills in God (although I do think God does will one thing and do another in certain circumstances). This idea is made popular among reformed theologians such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Jonathan Edwards. God instead desires all “kinds/classes of men” to be saved.
Below are some excerpts from another view of reformed theologians (some of them see “all men” as being both Jews and Gentiles). The focus is on 1 Timothy 2:4, because 2 Peter 3:9 is clearly written to Christians in an eschatological context. Please refrain from making emotional comments, but keep them exegetical. Note: I have thought this through a lot to ensure I am not reading into the texts.
James White (The Potter’s Freedom)
Who are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds of men, classes of men. Paul often spoke of “all men” in this fashion [cf. Titus 2:11]. First, if one takes “all men” in verse 4 to mean “all men individually,” does it not follow that Christ of necessity must be mediator for all men as well? If one say, “Yes, Christ meditates for every single human being,” does it not follow that Christ fails as a mediator every time a person negates His work by their all-powerful act of free will? One could hope that no biblical scholar would ever promote such an idea…
George Smeaton (The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles)
When the apostle directs Christians to pray for all men, the allusion is to be understood as pointing out ranks, conditions, and classes of men. This is evident, partly because they did not know all men numerically; partly because, among men in the wide sense, there are some for whom we are not to pray, viz. those who have sinned unto death (1 John v. 16). That the allusion is not to all men numerically, may be proved, too, from the announcement that God will have all men to be saved (ver. 14 [should be 4]), which refers to ranks and conditions, not to individuals; for God’s will would be effectual on all men, if the other meaning were intended.
John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion)
Secondly, they quote a passage from Paul in which he states that God ‘wills all men to be saved’ [I Tim. 2:3–4]. Even though this is distinct from the above reason, it has something in common with it. I reply: first, it is clear from the context how He wills it. For Paul couples the two points: that He wills them to be saved, and to come to a recognition of the truth. If they mean that this has been fixed by God’s eternal plan so that they may receive the doctrine of salvation, what does that saying of Moses’ mean: ‘What nation is so glorious that God should draw nigh unto it as he does unto you?’ [Deut. 4:7 p., cf. Comm.]. How did it happen that God deprived many peoples of the light of his gospel while others enjoyed it? How did it happen that the pure recognition of the doctrine of godliness never came to some, while others barely tasted some obscure rudiments of it? From this it will be easy to determine the drift of Paul’s reasoning. He had enjoined Timothy to make solemn prayers in the church for kings and rulers [I Tim. 2:1–2]. But since it seemed somewhat absurd to pour out prayers to God for an almost hopeless class of men (not only strangers all to the body of Christ, but intent upon crushing his Kingdom with all their strength), he adds, ‘This is acceptable to God, who wills all men to be saved’ [I Tim. 2:3–4 p.]. By this, Paul surely means only that God has not closed the way unto salvation to any order of men; rather, he has so poured out his mercy that he would have none without it.
John Owen (Works)
These, and the like reasons, which compel us to understand by all men, verse 4, whom God would have to be saved, men of all sorts, do also prevail for the same acceptation of the word all, verse 6, where Christ is said to give himself ‘a ransom for all;’ whereunto you may also add all those whereby we before declared that it was of absolute necessity and just equity that all they for whom a ransom was paid should have a part and portion in that ransom, and, if that be accepted as sufficient, be set at liberty. Paying and accepting of a ransom intimate a commutation and setting free of all them for whom the ransom is paid and accepted. By all, then, can none be understood but the redeemed, ransomed ones of Jesus Christ,â??such as, for him and by virtue of the price of his blood, are vindicated unto the glorious liberty of the children of God; which, as some of all sorts are expressly said to be, Rev. v. 9 (which place is interpretative of this), so that all in the world universally are so is confessedly false.
John Gill (The Cause of God and Truth)
I rather think that by all men are meant the Gentiles, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature (Rom. 11:12, 15; 1 John 2:2; Mark 16:15); which is the sense, I apprehend, in which it is used in verse 1, where the apostle exhorts, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all in authority; which was contrary to a notion that obtained among the Jews, of whom there were many in the primitive churches, that they should not pray for heathens and heathen magistrates.
Loraine Boettner (What is the Gospel?)
What about 1 Timothy 2:4–6, ‘Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth… Who gave himself a ransom for all’? It must be noted that ‘all’ is used in various senses. Oftentimes it means not all men without exception but all men without distinction: Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, men and women, rich and poor. In this context it is clearly used in that sense.
If the Bible does not say that God wills that all men are saved (and I think it does but.. I believe you that you have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and that you believe the Bible does NOT say it), then does it follow automatically that God does not want all men to be saved?
Simon, yes that was the essence of my argument. Basically, I’m arguing that when God wills something it comes to pass. There is no “will of command” (a willing that is revealed but doesn’t come to pass) espoused by some reformed theologians. Furthermore, understanding the Covenant of Redemption has solidified my belief in this.
Please understand I’m not undercutting the bone fide offer of the gospel. Humans don’t have “E” for elect or “R” for reprobate on their forehead; therefore, the gospel is to be preached without distinction (Matthew 11:28; Revelation 3:20).
I was noticing your urge to be exegetical with comments rather than emotional .. and I definitely want to avoid answering emotionally .. but what I am saying is this: suppose that there is no place in the Bible that says that God has two wills. (I take it that this is your position.) How is it that you are convinced that God does not have two wills? Is it on the fact that it is not mentioned in the Bible? Is that the necessary and sufficient condition for your believing that God does not have two wills?
Ok, I think there are two wills in one sense. Like God can command that He hates murder, yet He ordains His own Son to die. Another example is Moses and the plagues. God told Moses to tell the Pharoah to let the people go, but He does not let his people go (and God tells Moses this will happen). So there are instances where God can command one thing and do another. The two wills is not not mentioned literally (similiar to outright Trinity doctrine), but systematically two wills can be put together in certain instances.
Now, I am talking about only a soteriological emphasis in this essay. I confront the long run conception that God does indeed want all to be saved, and this is usually based on 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. The comments above reflect a view that those verses have been horribly taken out of their original context and meaning. So, look again above at the excerpts and see why I have come to this conclusion (alongside other reformed theologians). So, I am denying that God does elect a finite race of people but yet desire that all be saved (denying the latter and not the first). This is what the reformed view of “two wills” revolves around.
I talked about the Covenant of Redemption as well. This is referring to, before the foundation of the world, and inter-Trinitarian covenant of Redemption. That is the Father chose a people, the Son died for the people, and the Holy Spirit enables and preserves the people (Psalm 110:4). John 17, referring to Jesus’ prayer, is the greatest example of this. Jesus affirms the work given to Him to accomplish before the foundation of the world.
This revelation of this covenant made the redemptive purpose of God much clearer. While not mentioned in the article above, it has become crucial for me to see what God’s purpose is in creation.
No I totally get that. You’re specifically addressing a soteriological point .. and what I’m saying is this .. suppose 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4, are, when used to argue for God’s wanting, in one sense, for all individuals to be saved, taken out of context and therefore, very poor prooftexts for such a position. And suppose further that there are, in fact, no proof texts for the position that God has two willls with regard to this soteriological issue. What then? Should we automatically conclude that God does not have two wills with regard to this soteriological issue? Is that how you came to this conclusion — by the lack of a verse that you think speaks to this effect? I’m sincere and not rhetorical in my wondering.
Is it possible that there could be some other way (other than by reading in the Bible something like, “God desires that every single inidividual person is saved”) that we could know that God wants all men to be saved?
Simon, what a great question! You’re making me think, and we talked how much my brain hurts :) I see now where your question comes from.
The two redemptive wills in God is something I do deny due to a lack of Biblical data. Now, far be it for me to know the mind of God (Deut 29:29), but for what is the revealed will of God there is no support for the two redemptive wills.
Soteriologically, God has made known His will in creation. That is, the redemption of a people for His glory. Election, unconditional and individual, moves the redemptive purpose and will of God to be finite in its number (regarding the elect). That is why many Arminians argue from corporate election that God has drawn a circle in the ground and wants as many as possible to come to Him.
To many doctrines are based on “guessing” (infant salvation is the greatest example), but I cannot base my doctrine upon guessing. Now, I can come to systematic conclusions that illustrate clear doctrinal truths (compatibilism, Trinity, Hypostatic Union), but I cannot base a doctrine on how I “feel” outside of Biblical data (i.e. charisma). That is why I asked in the beginning to refrain from emotional arguments, because I know many go that way.
I don’t want my feeling and opinion on the nature of God to determine how I perceive His Word, but I rather would have His Word determine how I view His nature.
Ok, I gotcha. I see what you’re saying.
Now, there are some things we believe that we know about God that are not explicitly stated in the scriptures. For example, the Trinity. And there are also, I think, some things that we believe that we know about God that are not even indirectly said. For example, God did not have to create this world exactly as it is. He could have refrained from creating at all, or he could have created the world differently than it is.
Do we agree?
Uh…yes we can say that God did not have to create the world the way we did, and He could’ve refrained. But I’ll go back to the fact that God did create this world the way He did and for a specific purpose (i.e. John Piper’s seventh point). There are many branches of hypothetical theology, the necessity of the atonement is one issue that comes to the mind. But often hypothetical theology is riddled with philosophical and exegetical confusion.
I know, another Calvinist on Romans 9, but I do believe these three verses are a “synopsis” of the Bible.
Very true, very true, about God’s decision to create this world. And my statement was not an argument to the effect that God did not create this world for a specific purpose. I meant only to use an example of something that we know about God (his ability to refrain from creating if He do chose, and his ability to create differently if he so chose) not by exegesis of a passage that speaks to the issue either directly or indirectly, but by inference or some other means. So, we agree on that point then: that we do, in fact, know some things about God by inference or by some other means, and not by exegesis of a passage that speaks to the issue either directly or indirectly.
Obviously, we know a great deal about God by that latter way, and obviously we prefer that latter way, and obviously that latter way is an amazing blessing from God himself. Nevertheless, since we recognize that we know some things about God by the former way, my question is this: regarding whether or not God wants all men to be saved.. is THAT something we can possibly know about by inference or by some other means, and not by exegesis of a passage that speaks to the issue either directly or indirectly? I’m not asking rhetorically — I really want to know if you think the answer is yes or no.
PS — I don’t wince when I read Romans 9. Never do anything like apologize for quoting it. :)
Well, saying I can “infer” something about God comes only from a compilation of systematic examination. I could say something like, “Jesus spent a lot of time goofing off as a kid. Now, I wouldn’t make such an inference, because it is not for me to make. (The Biblical record places an emphasis on Jesus’ inquiry as a child (Luke 2:46–50).) After all, how can I really substantiate a position such as that and why should I?
Much the same, making judgements on the will or nature of God from anything outside of Biblical data leads to dangerous results. The Arminians downplay God’s nature of wrath for a system totally immersed in “love.” They make a judgement on the character of God from (1) a poor misunderstanding of God’s redemptive purposes and (2) pushing the philosophy over exegesis (I’m not taking a shot at Molinism).
I agree that truth can be manifest outside of the Bible, but I would disagree that we can deduce anything on the nature and character of God outside of the Bible. Even “being made in the image of God” that is the communicable attributes we share with Him that justify many extra-biblical assumptions on God is explained in the Bible thoroughly.
So, ultimately through all this incoherent ramble I’m doing I would say that it is impossible to infer a stance of the redemptive purposes of God without Biblical examination. The Christian worldview and conception of God’s redemptive will is shaped wholly by the Bible.
I just fear that saying that we can make individual deducements on the nature of God outside of the Bible would lead to some sort of convulted relativism (that is, “deducing” truth from our cognitive senses). Johnny says, “I believe God wants all to be saved.” And Chris says, “The Bible does not espouse such a position.” Johnny, “but from my experience, God’s love does want all to be saved.” Chris, [shakes head].
For brevity sake, let X = God wants all men to be saved.
Well, I don’t think we disagree too much (if at all) about our knowledge of God’s nature being grounded in what we know by reading the Bible. It’s just that I am wondering if you think we CAN know IF it is the case that God wants all men to be saved. So, let me ask a slightly different question — suppose for the sake of argument that X, and that (for some reason known only by God) the Bible does not teach that X — in THAT case, COULD we know that X? In other words, if there is NO Biblical evidence that X, is there any extrabiblical evidence (or means) by which we could possibly know that X?
If the answer is NO, then I would submit to you that we have a problem regarding a bunch of other things that we think we know about God — things that are not explicitly taught in the scripture.
If the answer is YES, then I would wonder what conclusions you came to regarding these ways or evidences (in other words, the reasons why you rejected them). I would further point out that if it IS the case that we can POSSIBLY know that X outside of the Bible, then your saying that X is not taught in the Bible is begging the question.
PS — I’m not trying to be a smart-aleck here.
I know full well your question. The question to you is, how do we know that X is true? Empirical evidence? Emotions? Some mutated philosophical system?
And I say NO we cannot know. And I would also ask what those doctrines you say we would have a problem (that is, not explicity taught in Scripture). I can’t think of one of the top of my head. Every doctrine we hold to of the Christian lifestyle is to be from His Word. Not to say that truth can’t exist outside of the world, but we do not derive truth from them—we only see what the Bible states. For instance Paul’s writing on general revelation in Romans 1.
Like the Frame quote I gave you, we can see something outside of the Bible and wonder if it’s truth; but it must go through the “theological screen” of the Bible. I could say, “I think God wants every man to be saved.” So, I go to the Bible and there is no such assertion. What do we do? In our systematic exposition we see the Covenant of Redemption, unconditional election, the penal substitutionary atonement, and we say that God does desire a group of individuals; but we are not led through Biblical examination to say that He wants every individual man to be saved. If He did, through the pattern of Biblical revelation, it would be accomplished (that is, all God’s desires come to fruition, but my Open Theistic friends would of course object).
“We can see something outside of the Bible and wonder if itâ??s truth; but it must go through the ‘theological screen’ of the Bible.” I understand what you mean here, and I agree with the spirit of your claim (God has prepared for us an inerrant, infallible, perfect record of the truths He wants to communicate to us through his written word, the Bible) but I would emphasize this point: The reason why the Bible is true is not because we’ve got the correct amount and arrangement of letters and symbols on a page; rather, the Bible is true because, firstly, God tells the truth (always), and because the Bible is inspired — men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The important distinction is this: the Bible isn’t true because God said it; rather, God said it because it is true. We do not hold to a simple-divine-command theory (like most Muslims).
The source of truth is not in the ink and pages in themselves, but rather in the non-written Word, the logos, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. That being said, I think it is obvious (and I am grateful and awe inspired) that God has chosen to communicate with us in this time primarily through the written word. And I agree: all of our doctrines must be formed through and tested by what we know is true by reading the Bible.
What God intends to convey through the written word is objectively true — it is “out there” — whether or NOT we have the subjective experience of that truth. (True propositions are true whether or not we know them to be true.) But the thing we must remember is that our experience is, nevertheless, a subjective experience of an objective reality. We cannot get out of being first-person knowers / experiencers. Therefore, our interpretations of object reality (including exegesis) cannot be separated from being subjective interpretations. This is not to say that we cannot be rationally objective in our examinations; of course we can!
Let Y = “a scripture verse or passage that speaks directly or indirectly to it”
Earlier we agreed that we do, in fact, know some things about God by inference or by some other means, and not by Y. In your last post you answered the question I asked in my very first post (and every subsequent post) :) by admitting that you do not think we can know the answer to the question â??Does God want all men to be saved?â? apart from Y. It seems to me that this may be an unjustified double standard. After all, you agree that there are SOME things we know about God apart from Y, but that this isn’t one of them. How would you explain this double standard? or, how would you account for our not being able to possibly know the answer to this question outside of Y?
Furthermore, you have, indeed, offered an answer to the question. You have offered a definitive answer to the question. You have answered in the negative. And you have said that we cannot know the answer to the question apart from Y. To be consistent, then, you would have to base your answer on Y. And it seems wholly obvious to me that you cannot answer the question simply by negation; that is, simply that there is a lack of Y with regard to whether or not X, it does not necessarily follow that ~X. This is an important point.
Furthermore, the following argument is unsound:
1. ~X
2. Therefore, any exegesis to the effect that X, is poor exegesis.
This argument is unsound because 1. it is begging the question. The question is, is X true? And the only way you think we can answer is by correctly exegeting. So if you were to exegete 1 Timothy or 2 Peter (or whatever passages) and then conclude that ~X, and then conclude that any exegesis to the effect that X is eo ipso wrong or poor exegesis, then you would be simply begging the question, and relying on your own private interpretation as definitively God’s decree.
Now, I am not saying that you have made this argument, Chris. I am simply stating the obvious, for the sake of clarity. There must be some other way that you rationally and soundly arrive at ~X. It cannot simply be an argument from silence, as it were. It seems there are two options, one of which you seem to have ruled out. Either you know outside of Y that ~X or you know by a positive case for ~X made in Y. That former way you seemed to have ruled out with regard to this issue (though I donâ??t know why). That leaves you with the latter way.
Now, you opened this discussion by saying that is it by reading James Whiteâ??s book that you came to believe that ~X; however, I will take you to mean that you believe that Dr. Whiteâ??s book simply helped you to better exegete.. since, on your view, it is only in Y that we can come to know about X or ~X. I am interested, then, in your positive case for ~X from Y.
Another challenge before you is to explain why it is the case that there is some sense in which God has two wills (or, as you put it: “God does will one thing and do another in certain circumstances”), but that this case (with regard to X or ~X) God does NOT have two wills. I would be interested to hear your thoughts after you read, â??Decision Making and the Will of Godâ? by Gary Freisen, or after listening to Greg Kouklâ??s audio lectures of the same name. A very strong case is made for Godâ??s having two wills â?? although the language “two wills” is possibly misleading, I think.
holler! (that came from my girlfriend), I’ll add my response later.
What are you saying? That you’re putting your girlfriend BEFORE conversations about X and Y and Z online??????????? What kind of a nerd are you?????????? :) :) :)
wait .. why were you looking at your site when your gf was around in the first place??????????? hehe
the guy has a point, i was wondering the same thing! holler!