According to Arminians, God loves every single solitary individual and desires their salvation. Thus, we have an unmitigated universal desire of God for the salvation of humanity at the individual level. God wants every single human to be saved. Everyone with me so far? If I’m blowin’ smoke, somebody pull the fire alarm, okay?
At the same time, according to Arminians, God wills that *only* those who believe be saved. No one is saved except through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the plan of salvation according to the will of God. Still with me?
So, at the same time God wills that every single individual be saved, and he wills that only some individuals be saved. Will an Arminian show me how either 1) I’ve misrepresented the position, or 2) how these two contrary wills of God are to be understood (without destroying classical Christian theology)?
Tim,
I’m glad I found you. I love your style 🙂 – I love that “if I’m blowing smoke somebody pull the fire alarm” – LOL!
Gene, I appreciate your discussion and participation. Also, it’s nice to be found. 🙂
Tim, it’s a great question. I’ve discussed with Arminians in the past that the only way I understood their position is that – God did not send his Son to save the world in a direct sense.
The whole Arminian position posits that God is not pursuing the lost because the lost must find God. Calvinism offers a much better view (imho) that the lost NEVER find God – they can’t because they’re blind and lost – but rather God ALWAYS finds them.
But here you’ve pin pointed and articulated a question which to me gives rise to this very same issue – what exactly is the will of God in Arminian (free will) theology.
I’ll give what I think they’ll say;
You misrepresent the Arminian position becauase God never wills “some” to be saved. He wills that the elect will eb saved but that is not regarding quanitity. God determining that the elect will be saved is inconsistent with his will that each and every individual come to repentance. Therefore God can will the elect to be save while the non-elect are not and desire that each and every individual come to repentance.
That’s my guess.
Thanks, gene. I appreciate the exchange.
I’m not sure I follow the explanation. It seems like you’ve (or the Arminian you’re speaking for) just changed “some” to “the elect.”
1) God wills that every single individual human is saved.
2) God wills that only elect individual humans are saved.
Unless every single individual human is elect, these propositions are still contrary.
Tim and Gene… I don’t represent “every” Arminian… just me and here is what I read in Scripture.
While God desires every human to be saved, He allows free will. I don’t know where anywhere in the Bible it states that God “wills” all to be saved, but rather the greek word in Timothy 2 for will means desire. So God can desire something and not act directly on that something because He also desires man to come to Him freely.
1) God desires that every single individual human be saved
2) He chooses those that believe to be saved (the elect)
Gene, you are incorrect to believe that Arminians don’t believe God pursues us… he does pursue us… relentlessly… He just doesn’t force us. He is a stalker in the true sense of the word 🙂
Mark, thanks for the response. I consider you “every Arminian,” just so you know. It’s like that Whitney Houston song: “I’m every Arminian, it’s all in me.”
Seriously, though, your comment is more or less exactly what I thought I’d receive back as an answer. One issue I have with the answer is that is makes various levels of will/desire in God. On one level, God just kinda desires stuff, but on another level he actually wills it and brings it to pass. What, in the final analysis, is that lower level of desire but some divine daydreaming? This is especially acute when he “desires” that which he knows will not come to pass. It’s pressed to a fevered pitch when one considers that if he really desired the salvation of every single individual, he could make that happen… BUT HE DOESN’T. Thus, God’s “desire” is contrary to reality, the reality that he’s chosen to bring to pass when he could have done otherwise.
All this, to me, seems like madness. If a man told me that he desired a thing that he had the power to bring to pass, but didn’t, I’d say he didn’t really desire it. If a man told me he desired a thing, but set up circumstances (by his own hand) such that he absolutely would not get what he said he wanted, I’d question his sanity and/or his honesty.
On one level, God just kinda desires stuff…”
I don’t agree with “kinda”. God desires stuff and this stuff does come to pass. I don’t believe there is a “kinda” anything about God.
This is especially acute when he “desires” that which he knows will not come to pass.
The problem with this is that God does not “just” desire mankind to be saved… this is cutting His desire short to make your point. God desires us to choose freely between salvation and damnation… and this desire does come to pass each time we make our choice. So although He desires all to be saved, He also desires that it be by our choice… thus His desire / will comes to pass.
Thus, God’s “desire” is contrary to reality, the reality that he’s chosen to bring to pass when he could have done otherwise.
The reality that He chose to bring to pass was man entering into relationship with Him freely… so it is not contrary to God’s desire.
All this, to me, seems like madness. If a man told me that he desired a thing that he had the power to bring to pass, but didn’t, I’d say he didn’t really desire it. If a man told me he desired a thing, but set up circumstances (by his own hand) such that he absolutely would not get what he said he wanted, I’d question his sanity and/or his honesty.
If a man told me that he desired his children to freely obey him, and he had the power to force them to obey, but chose to forgo the “force”… I would not question his sanity or his honesty.
Mark, you’re making my point in different words. I contend that Arminians have *conflicting* wills in God. You’ve managed to illustrate that for me. From what I can tell, you’ve affirmed that God wills/desires the salvation of every single individual human, but he desires that salvation in a certain manner. If the second clause “he desires it in a certain manner” modifies the first, then the first is misleading. If the first is true, then the second is conflicting. What am I missing, brother?
Since you (rightly) reject my “kinda” language, why don’t you define what’s *actually* meant by God desires the salvation of every single individual human? How does that definition harmonize with his desire to save only us as we freely will to be saved?
Tim,
What do you see when you look at a couple of passages set side-by-side, such as Deuteronomy 5:29 and Deuteronomy 29:2-5a?
In Deut. 5:29 (NKJV), God speaks concerning the Hebrew people with great fervor and says, “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!”
God said that shortly after the Exodus. Forty years later Moses said this in Deut. 29:2-5 (NKJV), “You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land—the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet.”
In one passage at the beginning of the 40 years, God expresses how he longs for the people to have such a heart to fear and obey him always. “Oh, that they had such a heart in them!” Yet at the end of the 40 years, we learn from Moses that God never bothered to give them such a heart. Did he desire that they have such a heart to see and perceive the wonders of God in the Exodus and fear him and obey, or did he not? He said he did, but never acted upon that desire. That’s what I see going on, and I think it speaks to your point. I’ve mentioned this on a previous article of yours (quoting John Frame), that God does not intend to bring about everything he values, which could include universalism. What do you see?
Wesley, how’s one to determine what God values vs. what he wills? In other words, when Arminians read 1 Tim 2 and 2 Pet 3:9b they find there the will of God respecting the salvation of every single individual human. Is God, then, on your view (if it is your view), to be said to “value” the salvation of all men without exception, but will the salvation of the elect? I don’t quite see how this works out with the topic at hand. Help me out, bro.
Tim,
Sorry. Let me clarify. The point I was addressing is the one you made in a comment, not the original post. You said, “All this, to me, seems like madness. If a man told me that he desired a thing that he had the power to bring to pass, but didn’t, I’d say he didn’t really desire it. If a man told me he desired a thing, but set up circumstances (by his own hand) such that he absolutely would not get what he said he wanted, I’d question his sanity and/or his honesty.”
I brought up Deuteronomy 5:29 and 29:2-5 because that situation speaks to the point you made in the above quote. So with that clarification, what do you see going on in the Deut. 5 and 29 situation? You can review my initial comment to review what I think is happening there.
Thanks for the clarification, Wesley. My standard thought would be that the Dt 5 passage has to do with God’s command, while the Dt 29 passage has to do with his decree. The language of the command is urgent and impassioned (as it’s address to God’s covenant people). This is not uncommon in the Scripture (Ex 18; 33; Mt 23:37), and is articulated anthropopathically. The focus on the decree is also not uncommon in Scripture (Mt 11:25).
There’s another similar example in Deuteronomy of this same dynamic: the circumcision of the heart. First, God calls this people to circumcise their hearts (Dt 10:16), but later God says the he’ll do it (Dt 30:6). This is the old Augustianian maxim: “Command what thou wilt, and grant what thou commandest.” God need not grant what he commands.
Well, I see what you’re attempting to say, but I’m not convinced. It’s one thing to state a command, it’s another to express a desire, even if that desire is related to a command. When the text explicitly says God fervently desires the people to fear and obey, I think we should take that for what it says, rather than making it an emotional personification of a divine command. You know what I mean? Divine commands and divine desires aren’t the same thing.
The Hebrews ought to fear and obey God, and when they do, God says he would like them to continue to do so always. Yet we’re told God never gave them such a heart. The corollary is that such a heart was God’s to give. God says he really wants to them to have such a heart, it is within his power to give such a heart effectually, yet he doesn’t give it. Now I don’t think this makes God schizophrenic. I think it means God has levels and priorities in his will and desires. Sometimes God expresses desires, not just commands, he has not decreed to achieve.
Wesley, you may be right in saying that God has levels of priorities in his will and desires, but what does that mean? What does it mean that God “desires” something that he not only *knows* he won’t get, but that he himself acts to not get? What are we to make of such a “desire”? If such is the case, can we make anything more of that “desire” than some sort of divine fancy? If so, what are we to make of the simplicity and immutability of God? I contend that such thinking does real damage to the classical doctrine of God.
Tim,
Perhaps you’re right. I’m not Arminian and while I believe in free will in diffeent senses I don’t believe like that Arminian in libertarian free will (although I’m learning from William Birch that Classical Arminains do not believe in libertarian free will either).
But most Arminains are not near as rounded as a William Birch. Their ideas are all mixed up.
With that said, I believe they’ll simply state that you’re mixin up catagories. Proposition 1 regards his desire/will that all come to salvation. Proposition 2 regards the process of how ANYONE can be saved. So God wills that all people are elect but has also willed that only elect are saved. I’m not convinced that these two proposition are in contradiction.
Mark,
When God finds you he does not offer you free will. Calvinists know that EXTREMELY WELL. When you are found it is synonomous with you are saved. So if you are found you are no longer lost. If one rejects God he is lost and still blind and irrational. But if one is found, he is saved and NOT LOST.
Do you disagree?
I don’t know what you are saying here.
Tim,
I have great difficulty avoiding determinism in scripture. Whenever I’ve quoted Jer “I will CAUSE you to walk in my ways” – I simply don’t get a good explanation that satisfies me. When people say God does not CAUSE us to love him because that would violate our free will and would destroy the foundation of love, they don’t explain how God causes us to love him and keep his commandments WHILE maintaining that it’s all dependent upon us.
Similarly, like the Pharaoh, they argue he was already wicked. But when you look at moses, do you really think it was just God’s luck that Moses’ mom put him in the basket at the right time so his basket just so happened to come into the hands of the Pharaoh’s daugther. All a bunch of free will events which God just so uses in his favor? Hardly. Her choices were not free and neither was Moses’ mother’s. God was causing it all to tell us a beautiful story.
Was it God’s luck that the Pharaoh’s first born just so happened to be a son rather than a daughter? Ok so it’s a 50/50 chance; not bad odds. I don’t agree. God ordained it all just as in Eden.
Anyways sorry for rambling.
Thanks,
Gene
Tim,
Good questions. This concept isn’t fully formed or fully developed in my thinking, but I think it is worth pursuing, for I find some evidence in Scripture to suggest and support it. Of course, I could be misinterpreting the biblical data, but that has yet to be demonstrated to my satisfaction. And that is why I push this concept in discussions like this to see how it stands up to good and challenging questions. So thanks for interacting =]
I think God having lower-order values or lower-level desires (as opposed to higher-order values or higher-level desires) means God has things he delights in, inclines towards, and desires (i.e., wills in the weakest sense of the term, viz. not his will of command or his will of decree) that he has no intention, plan or design to bring to pass.
Say it another way, God has values that he finds pleasure in and that his heart is drawn towards in and of themselves. Considered singly, God would will these values in the strongest sense, i.e., he would decree them. But when these values are considered within the view of the universality of God’s plan, purpose and design, some of God’s values rise to the top, and others fall to the bottom. So there is now a priority or a hierarchy in God’s will and desires. Lower-level values are those that fall to the bottom; higher-level values are those that rise to the top.
In Scripture, we sometimes see God express these lower-level values. Considered in itself, God was greatly pleased with the prospect of his people having such a heart. But considered in the universality of the divine plan, God had a higher value that he decreed over against a lower value he desired. He desires both higher and lower values, but he desires some more than others.
This has been a very rough sketch. So I don’t expect there to be no holes or problems. But I want to advance the idea as I see it developing from Scriptural evidence. You’ll have to explain further how simplicity and immutability are affected by this concept.
I also appreciate the discussion, Wesley. This concept is new to me, so I’m still trying to understand it. My guiding principle is that God does all that he wants to do: “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Ps 115:3). If God “wants” something or is “inclined toward” something, he does it. He’s God. There’s something in there that flies in the face of this notion of God “valuing” things.
As to simplicity and immutability – God is classically conceived of as in pure act, knowing all things in a simple act of intuition (as opposed to discursively learning things), and decreeing all things in one, eternal, simple decree. God is radically one and unchangingly so. Thus, the notion that God’s weighing things out, making decision between this and that, etc. is classically understood as anthropomorphic. It’s late and I’m getting punchy, but I think that various levels of desire (or levels of values) runs contrary to these classical understandings of God. BTW, these understandings are not “Calvinistic,” but catholic.
Tim,
I think the quotation from Ps. 115 (and similar passages) simply tell us that God does as he wills and only as he wills. Whatever God is pleased to do, that’s what he does. That does not necessarily entail that he is pleased to do everything he might value or delight in.
I don’t think anything I have said diminishes God’s ontological simplicity or the immutability of his character and nature. God is one simple essence, not composed of “parts” or multiple elements. His having various kinds and levels of values and desires doesn’t take away from that doctrine. Nor does it mean that God would have to think discursively in forming his decree.
Any anyways, the pure act and absolute divine simplicity doctrine is not catholic, it’s Western. The Eastern Church doesn’t hold to that doctrine as per the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition.
Welsey, Ps 115:3 says that God does ALL that pleases him, all that he desires, all that he moves toward. I don’t see how this leaves room for God to desires, move toward, value something that he doesn’t do.
As to simplicity, I’m open to another conception of God that is rational and keeps the biblical data. I’m not familiar with Eastern thought on this, but I am familiar with Western theologians that have dismissed it. What they end up with is very weak and human-like conception of God… not very impressive. I’ll stick with the Augustianian tradition on this one until I see something better. However, you might be right is saying that nothing about the value concept runs afoul of it.
God’s will is that every human be saved. God is all knowing, God knows us all, and our demons. Hell is what we make of life on earth. Trust in God is a surer path to harmonious and peaceful living. A simple test – does a human baby born away from civilization who has and will never hear of God, much less Jesus, miss out on salvation? Are they, creatures of God’s earth, doomed because He did not send a missionary? Obviously not, if God is a loving God. Christ also said that “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold”. Seemed like there was another quote, that included something like “of which you know nothing” but could not find it. Who knows what special love Christ has for brothers and sisters? What love does God have for his children? To speak of God condemning humans for being human, is to say that a parent does not love an unruly child? Oh well. It is not for us to determine who is or is not to be saved, anyway.
Ted, you ask: “A simple test – does a human baby born away from civilization who has and will never hear of God, much less Jesus, miss out on salvation?” Yes. Without faith in Jesus Christ, there is no salvation. All mankind is under the wrath and curse of God. The Gospel of Christ is the ONLY salvation… don’t matter how we FEEL about it.
Ted,
Sounds like you have read, or would enjoy reading, Love Wins by Rob Bell. Not a good book, just for the record.
Wesley,
Gordon Knight has argued against Thomas Talbott that God does have overarching wills. Would this me akin to what you’re referring to?
Tim,
Is this not similar to the Calvinist view that God’s decretive will is higher than his non-decretive will.
Gene, can you point me to a single classical Calvinist that says something like: “God’s decretive will is higher than his non-decretive will”? I’ll eat my hat if you can find one. (BTW, I’m NOT talking about the “new” Calvinists… they haven’t spent enough time reading the old ones!)
Tim,
I may be wrong about that. I didn’t mean to phrase it as if it was a calvinistic view. Let me re-phrase that.
I recall some Calvinists like Gene Cook regard that God has a will which is non-decreeing – and one that referes to what he decrees.
I may even have misunderstood Gene on that. I’ll look up the MP3 and see if I can locate it.
Tim,
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the article. As far as I do understand it, it sounds similar to what you and Wesley are talking about. My point being, perhaps it’s a semantic barrier.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/are-there-two-wills-in-god
Gene
Gene, I’m mildly familiar with the two-wills theory. I think it’s bad theology and based on misunderstandings of texts like 1 Tim 2 and 2 Pet 3:9 (and others). I’ve offered interpretations on this blog of both of those texts that are far superior to the standard Armianian undestanding of them.
LOL don’t be too humble there Tim 🙂
The strange thing is Piper shares your view on 1 Tim, does he not?
He states
It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that “God’s willing all persons to be saved” does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the “all persons” in verse 1 may well mean groups like “kings and all in high positions” (v. 2).
Sounds like it. I didn’t read his article. I like Piper, but I’m not very familiar with him. I like his passion for the Lord and for the people of God. In any event, yes, it sounds like his take on 1 Tim 2 is similar to mine.
Interesting discussion there!