The Vice
Ok, no more making fun of women and their desire to buy tons of shoes. I’m just as bad on the book end. Here is a book list that I’ve bought since being here, and the project’s not even half-way over with!
- Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur
- The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence
- Jonathan Edwards: Basic Writings
- Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware
- The Calvinistic Conception of Culture by Henry Van Til
- American Denominational Organization by Ross Schere
- The Meaning of the Millennium (Various)
- Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Various)
- Still Sovereign (Various)
I’m also reading The Potter’s Freedom by James White and Studies in Theology by Loraine Boettner. I’m reading in the Potter’s Freedom, and he explains 1 Timothy 2:1–4 as not being “all men” in a universal sense but rather as all men whether in authority or lay (vs. 2). I believe now that the two wills is not necessary for soteriology. I truly believe God does not want all men to be saved (and White explains 2 Peter 3:9 in it’s eschatological context). There is a will of decree and command by Piper’s examples, but he is wrong in his assertion that it is a soteriological necessity.
I also read in Still Sovereign J.I. Packer’s article on love, and the article was good at contrasting Arminianism/Calvinism on essential elements; but it amazes me how those who are infra make it a point in their writings usually by an appositive (“foreseen as ‚” “seen as sinners,” etc). Infra is really only a water-downed version of the Arminian perspective of foreknowledge composed of human agency. Their is no doubt anymore as to the truth of Supralapsarianism. Tom Schreiner wrote two great articles: one on whether Romans 9 teaches individual election to salvation and whether the Bible teaches prevenient grace in the Wesleyan sense.
Explain what you mean by “soteriological necessity”? What about a Biblical necessity to make sense of so many texts of God’s compassion on his creation?
God’s kindness and forebearance is meant to lead the reprobate and non-elect to repentance:
Aaron, while I appreciate your desire to maintain a sincere focus on God’s love, I myself do not want to divert from it. Your argumentation against my exegetical look at the passages–a straw man. I do not detract from God’s love, nor do I detract from God’s love for the non-elect (which would’ve been a Hyper-Calvinistic position). My inquiry was whether God desires all men to come to Him, and I find through Scriptural examination that He does not.
Also, your cited passage says nothing persuasive to the fact that God desire the non-elect to be saved.
If you’re only talking about 1 Timothy 2:1–4, then I think you need to reword you post. Your statement “I believe now that the two wills is not necessary for soteriology” is more general than that.
He doesn’t desire them, on any level, to come to him, but his kindness and patience is meant to lead them to repentance?
“Coming to him”, and belief, and repentance are essentially synonymous (to a degree), and they all are instrumental in saving people. So if God means for patience and kindness to lead people to repentance, we at least at one level have to embrace a reality that God desires all men to come to him (hence the exegetical reality of God’s two wills). Not in the context of John 6, but certainly in the context of Romans 2:4–5 and 10:21. When something like this is shown to be a exegetical reality, it also becomes a soteriological reality. Flat-out saying that God’s two wills aren’t a soteriological necessity (and therefore not an exegetical necessity) is an affront to plain scripture.
â??All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.â? -Romans 10:21
Aaron, again I have affirmed that the look of the will of decree/command is important; and it sheds much light on several passages of Scripture, but I’m talking about the question of whether God does desire all men everywhere to be saved.
If the two will understanding is that He can demand all men to repent, and then still only decree that He bring His elect to them than that is a separate issue. I would agree with that assertion. What I’ve found to disagree with is that God can desire all men to be saved, and yet He only elect a body of the redeemed. It is this issue to which I stand. Piper affirms this in his article:
Chris,
You’d better finish reading that article by Piper. He goes on to say that he doesn’t believe that that sort of exegesis is correct. It’s obvious that the most straightforward reading of the 1 Tim. 2:4 text leads us to believe that God desires every individual to be saved. The only way someone like James White can only get around this by twisting the text in a manner that misrepresents the author’s point.
I think that Piper is on the right track here. Does that mean that every individual will actually be saved? Of course, not! God desires all men to be saved in the same sense that He desires for us to tell the truth, or to obey His commands. I think that the best way to handle the text is by making some sort of distinction in God’s will.
Daniel, this is why we practice exegesis and aren’t quick to a straight-forward reading. And I have read the article twice, I used to promote it, and I just bought the book it which it was originally published (Still Sovereign). I know the issues at hand.
I challenge to defend your straw man that White/Gill “twist” the verse to misrepresent the author’s point.
Remember that the goal of exegesis is to understand what the author is communicating to his original audience. We need to ask, “How would Paul’s original audience understood this statement?” This statement is found in a context of prayer. Paul commands Timothy to instruct saints to pray for “everyone” in vs. 1. Of course, this includes kings and those in authority. Then Paul gives two reasons for praying kings. One, so that they can live a quiet and peaceful life, and two, since God desires all men to be saved. I’m pretty sure that they would taken it to mean that God desires everyone (including kings) to be saved.
BTW, a straw man argument is where someone misrepresents his opponent by teaching his opponent’s view incorrectly and then defeating the weakened argument. I’m not sure how I misrepresented their view in my comment. I only said that such a view twists in the text. I don’t believe that anyone would arrive at this view without having a preconceived theological point that they wanted to prove. That’s why I think that Piper is being much more honest in handling the text.
Yes, I’ve struggled with this passage; and I’ve been careful not to come to a hasty conclusion. I must re-evaluate in terms of both Gill’s and Piper’s conclusions.