Is the Bible True? (part I)
I have been thinking over the past few weeks about this particular question, not because I doubt whether the Bible is true, but rather because I know there are so many people (even Christians) who do. It got me to thinking (which can be dangerous) about whether this is even the right question to ask. Let me 'splain ...
When we ask if the Bible is true, or how we can know if the Bible is true, we are asking the wrong question in my opinion. Asking if the Bible is true, in that manner, implies that we can determine the answer without making reference to the Bible. In fact, it implies that we cannot make such a reference (i.e. assume the truth of it), or else we will be guilty of circular reasoning. We would be assuming the very thing we are attempting to ascertain the truth of. Such an approach would be entirely irrational.
But it is at this point we must consider the claims that the Bible makes, specifically the claims about God and knowledge. Consider Proverbs 1:7a.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."
What does this verse say about the nature of God? It says that in order to have knowledge we must first have a fear of God. It says the first step in the process of knowledge is to fear God. Now, we don't have to believe that this is true. In fact, I suspect most people would think it was silly that we would first have to fear God in order to know things. But that is what the Bible says, and remember, if we want to find out if the Bible is true, we must consider all that it says.
And so here we find the problem facing us is maybe larger than we first expected.
Do we have the ability to determine whether the Bible is true without referring to it? Can we come to a meaningful conclusion as to the truth of the assertion "the Bible is true" without assuming at least part of it is true from the outset? No. At least not according to Proverbs 1:7.
If we plan on determining whether the Bible is true, we have to evaluate the claims that it makes. In fact, due to the nature of the claim made in Proverbs 1:7, we cannot simply ask the question "is the Bible true" without considering, at least for the sake of argument, that the Bible is true. But once again, if we assume that Bible is true, then we cannot use that assumption as part of the process of deciding if the Bible is true - or can we?
This is why I say that asking "is the Bible true" is the wrong question to ask. It is the wrong question to ask specifically because of the claims that the Bible makes. Proverbs 1:7 says we must first fear God before we can know anything, meaning we cannot even know if the Bible is true unless we assume God exists, and unless we fear Him. But if we must first fear God, then we must first understand who he is. Why is that?
Consider this - if you came to me and said "fear the Great and Mighty Humbunny" you would probably expect my next question to be "who or what is the Great Humbunny?" That would be a reasonable question, after all, as it would be utterly impossible for me to fear someone or something I know absolutely nothing about, especially when we consider what the word "fear" means.
I do not believe that the word "fear" in Proverbs 1:7 means "to be afraid of." The Bible as a whole speaks about the relationship between God and knowledge from a different perspective than that of trembling in one's shoes. Fear, in this sense, is reverence, which is a realization of the person of God and the role he plays in our process of "knowing" things.
1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be always ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us. But the very first part of 1 Peter 3:15, along with the last part, instructs us as to how we are to accomplish this.
"But sanctify the LORD in your heart" - that is the first part of the verse. What does that mean? It means we are to set Christ apart in our heart - we are to give him primacy in our heart as the means by which we will be able to give that answer for the hope that is within.
The "heart" in this case is not that physical organ that pumps blood - such an interpretation is not reasonable. I believe that the heart in this verse speaks of our intellect - the "thinking" part of our being. I believe we are to give our LORD the primacy he alone deserves in our reasoning. In fact, Pauls tells us that very same thing in Colossians 2. Verses 2-4 say basically the same thing as Proverbs 1:7.
"that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of undersanding and the knowledge of God's mystery which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no man may delude you with plausible arguments."
Where do the riches of both wisdom and knowledge reside? In Jesus. Consider Colossians 2:8.
"See to it that noone takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
Paul warns us to be sure our way of viewing the world - our philosophy - is one that is Christ-centered, and not world-centered.
What do all these passages - Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:4 and 8, and 1 Timothy 3:15 have in common? I believe they clearly instruct us that God as our father and as our saviour play a crucial role in our ability to know things; to think properly; to reason correctly.
Now some of you may have noticed that I am using the Bible a lot here - there is a reason for that. If we are to determine whether the Bible is true, we must consider what it says, and what the Bible says about knowing and thinking and reasoning is that we must fear God; that is, we must give him the ultimate place in our intellect if we are to be able to know anything, including whether the Bible is true. And so this leads us back to the problem of asking the question "is the Bible true" in the first place. If we must set God in an ultimate place in our reasoning in order to know things; if we are to sanctify him and fear him and revere him, then we must know who he is. We certainly can't honor and revere a being we know nothing about.
But in order to know who God is, we have to look into the Bible (at least according to the Bible). We must assume that what the Bible tells us about God is true in order to know who God is, so that we can set him apart and revere him, in order that we can know anything at all, which includes knowing whether the Bible is true!
Do you see the great big circle we must traverse? Let me make it simpler.
According to the Bible, we must assume the Bible is true in order to know if the Bible is true.
Therein lies the problem - it is specifically why we cannot ask the question "is the Bible true" and come to an answer without assuming the very thing we are questioning. And so we see that we cannot hope to answer the question "is the Bible true" without being circular in our reasoning.
Does this therefore mean that there is no way for us to know if the Bible is true? No - it simply means we must ask the question differently. And that will be the subject of my next post on this topic just as soon as I get around to posting it!
-- BK
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
A Big Deal
Every now and then the pastor of my church graciously allows me to speak to our congregation. The last time was a few weeks ago, and the topic was something very near and dear to me - why the Bible is such a Big Deal!
Having grown up in the church, I realized a few years ago that I had no clue why I believed what I believed - I couldn't do as Peter commanded us to do, give an answer for the reason for the hope that was in me. So began a long journey that I am still on today - reading and learning and understanding God's revelation.
This message touches on the necessity of reading scripture from a few different perspectives.
The file is large (14MB), but should load and start playing right away. If not, simply [right-click] on the following link and save it to your local drive.
Why the Bible is a Big Deal
As always, feel free to post any comments you have!
-- BK
Every now and then the pastor of my church graciously allows me to speak to our congregation. The last time was a few weeks ago, and the topic was something very near and dear to me - why the Bible is such a Big Deal!
Having grown up in the church, I realized a few years ago that I had no clue why I believed what I believed - I couldn't do as Peter commanded us to do, give an answer for the reason for the hope that was in me. So began a long journey that I am still on today - reading and learning and understanding God's revelation.
This message touches on the necessity of reading scripture from a few different perspectives.
The file is large (14MB), but should load and start playing right away. If not, simply [right-click] on the following link and save it to your local drive.
Why the Bible is a Big Deal
As always, feel free to post any comments you have!
-- BK
Monday, July 24, 2006
Welcome Home
This past year my family and I spent a week at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL. It was a great time. The weather was perfect, the rides and shows were great, and our accomodations were just fantastic. We stayed at the Wilderness Lodge, one of Disney's "on-site" resorts. Let me tell you, the place is amazing.
When we first arrived at the Lodge, I stepped out of the car and was greated with "Welcome Home". You know, I didn't think much about it, except that it was a clever marketing phrase - a little subliminal message that "you belong here, be sure to come back often and spend lots of money!"
But the more time we spent at Disney, the more comfortable we felt. Everybody, and I mean everybody had a fantastic attitude. Customer service was most definitely the number one thing on their mind, and it showed. It didn't matter whether were riding the boat over to the Magic Kingdom, whether we were eating at The Whispering Canyon Cafe, or whether we were passing a housekeeper in the halls ... the smiles, the warmth, the friendly demeanor was everywhere. And that got me to thinking ...
It made me wonder why we had to pay so much money, and why we had to travel so far from home, to experience this level of customer service. More to the point, it made me wonder whether these people were like this in their "real lives", or whether it was just an act they put on while at work.
And finally, it convicted me! It made me wonder why I didn't act like these people do all the time. It shouldn't be that tough to do. It shouldn't be difficult to smile. It shouldn't take much effort to be friendly. And in reality, if you really desire to do this, it shouldn't take much work to have an others-first-me-last attitude. But it is difficult, it is hard, it does take work.
Why is it so much effort to be nice??
I think we know the answer, don't we? It is selfishness. It is the me-first-others-next attitude that is so ingrained in us. This is nothing new ... it is a part of the human nature to love oneself. In fact, Jesus realized there was no doubt that we think primarily of ourselves, that's why he said what he did in Mark 12:31 ... "love your neighbor as yourself."
So here's the challenge ... to you and to me. Why can't we take this to heart in every part of our lives? Not just at church, not just at home, but in every single area? Why can't we give a level of "customer service" to others that would make Disney World pale by comparison?
It won't be easy ... we will really have to want to do this. But consider the impact we would have on this world if we were to daily live out the attitude behind the words "Welcome Home".
-- BK
This past year my family and I spent a week at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL. It was a great time. The weather was perfect, the rides and shows were great, and our accomodations were just fantastic. We stayed at the Wilderness Lodge, one of Disney's "on-site" resorts. Let me tell you, the place is amazing.
When we first arrived at the Lodge, I stepped out of the car and was greated with "Welcome Home". You know, I didn't think much about it, except that it was a clever marketing phrase - a little subliminal message that "you belong here, be sure to come back often and spend lots of money!"
But the more time we spent at Disney, the more comfortable we felt. Everybody, and I mean everybody had a fantastic attitude. Customer service was most definitely the number one thing on their mind, and it showed. It didn't matter whether were riding the boat over to the Magic Kingdom, whether we were eating at The Whispering Canyon Cafe, or whether we were passing a housekeeper in the halls ... the smiles, the warmth, the friendly demeanor was everywhere. And that got me to thinking ...
It made me wonder why we had to pay so much money, and why we had to travel so far from home, to experience this level of customer service. More to the point, it made me wonder whether these people were like this in their "real lives", or whether it was just an act they put on while at work.
And finally, it convicted me! It made me wonder why I didn't act like these people do all the time. It shouldn't be that tough to do. It shouldn't be difficult to smile. It shouldn't take much effort to be friendly. And in reality, if you really desire to do this, it shouldn't take much work to have an others-first-me-last attitude. But it is difficult, it is hard, it does take work.
Why is it so much effort to be nice??
I think we know the answer, don't we? It is selfishness. It is the me-first-others-next attitude that is so ingrained in us. This is nothing new ... it is a part of the human nature to love oneself. In fact, Jesus realized there was no doubt that we think primarily of ourselves, that's why he said what he did in Mark 12:31 ... "love your neighbor as yourself."
So here's the challenge ... to you and to me. Why can't we take this to heart in every part of our lives? Not just at church, not just at home, but in every single area? Why can't we give a level of "customer service" to others that would make Disney World pale by comparison?
It won't be easy ... we will really have to want to do this. But consider the impact we would have on this world if we were to daily live out the attitude behind the words "Welcome Home".
-- BK
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Kicking and Screaming
I read the most remarkable statement the other day in a discussion between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist:
"God doesn't drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven!"
The non-Calvinist sounded absolutely outraged that Calvinists would believe that God would take people to Heaven against their will (i.e. "kicking and screaming"). This misrepresentation derives from the belief that Calvinists hold that God's grace is irresistable (the "I" in TULIP), meaning that if God has determined an individual will come to him, then it is going to happen.
It is worth mentioning that Calvinists do not believe that God forces anyone to go to Heaven against their will, but rather changes their heart so that their will is then in alignment with God's on the issue of salvation. This is not mucking about with the will itself, but rather changing (regenerating) that which determines the types of choices the will makes (the heart).
But let's consider for a moment the (straw-man) objection of the non-Calvinist who would make such a statement above (note that I am certainly not saying all non-Calvinists would make this statement.) It is important to consider this statement, because it demonstrates clearly just how important the "freedom to choose" is to this individual.
I wonder what one who would make this criticism would answer to the following question:
"If God already knew that your spouse would not willingly accept God's gift, would you prefer He let them spend an eternity in hell, or would you rather he brought them to Heaven kicking and screaming?"
When the question is phrased this way, I wonder if the non-Calvinist might feel different about this argument? When the question is phrased this way, might the non-Calvinist reevaluate just how important the "freedom" of their spouse's will is, as compared to their eternal disposition?
I wonder.
-- BK
I read the most remarkable statement the other day in a discussion between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist:
"God doesn't drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven!"
The non-Calvinist sounded absolutely outraged that Calvinists would believe that God would take people to Heaven against their will (i.e. "kicking and screaming"). This misrepresentation derives from the belief that Calvinists hold that God's grace is irresistable (the "I" in TULIP), meaning that if God has determined an individual will come to him, then it is going to happen.
It is worth mentioning that Calvinists do not believe that God forces anyone to go to Heaven against their will, but rather changes their heart so that their will is then in alignment with God's on the issue of salvation. This is not mucking about with the will itself, but rather changing (regenerating) that which determines the types of choices the will makes (the heart).
But let's consider for a moment the (straw-man) objection of the non-Calvinist who would make such a statement above (note that I am certainly not saying all non-Calvinists would make this statement.) It is important to consider this statement, because it demonstrates clearly just how important the "freedom to choose" is to this individual.
I wonder what one who would make this criticism would answer to the following question:
"If God already knew that your spouse would not willingly accept God's gift, would you prefer He let them spend an eternity in hell, or would you rather he brought them to Heaven kicking and screaming?"
When the question is phrased this way, I wonder if the non-Calvinist might feel different about this argument? When the question is phrased this way, might the non-Calvinist reevaluate just how important the "freedom" of their spouse's will is, as compared to their eternal disposition?
I wonder.
-- BK
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Derek for Free?
Hats-off to Derek Webb for launching freederekwebb.com (ok, it isn't going live until Sept. 1st, but who's counting?) People will be able to not only listen to, but download and keep his latest album "Mockingbird". Wish I had known about this before I purchased it! :)
I have grown to appreciate Derek's music, first as a member of Caedmon's Call, and more recently as he launched into a solo career. His most recent album "Mockingbird" tackles a number of very sensitive issues. Here is what Derek says on his site about the album, as well as his motivation for launching this web site:
-- BK
Hats-off to Derek Webb for launching freederekwebb.com (ok, it isn't going live until Sept. 1st, but who's counting?) People will be able to not only listen to, but download and keep his latest album "Mockingbird". Wish I had known about this before I purchased it! :)
I have grown to appreciate Derek's music, first as a member of Caedmon's Call, and more recently as he launched into a solo career. His most recent album "Mockingbird" tackles a number of very sensitive issues. Here is what Derek says on his site about the album, as well as his motivation for launching this web site:
my most recent record ‘mockingbird’ deals with many sensitive issues including poverty, war, and the basic ethics by which we live and deal with others. but i found that music has been an exceptional means by which to get this potentially difficult conversation going. and this is certainly an important moment for dialogue amongst people who disagree about how to best love and take care of people, to get into the nuances of the issues.Bravo, Derek. Although I am not sure I completely agree with all your perspectives, I do applaud you for opening the conversation up in such a generous and creative way!
-- BK
Dave Hunt ... Who could God save?
In the Q&A section of Dave Hunt's website (www.thebereancall.org), Dave responds to a question regarding the lack of footnotes providing a reference which identifies "some scholars" who feel that the first 15 chapters of Acts were actually written in Hebrew. I'm not going to get into the problems with this statement, as James R. White has already sufficiently addressed it on his blog.
What I want to make mention of, however, is a statement that Dave Hunt makes in his response. Dave says the following:
If Dave thinks it is a problem that in the Calvinist's worldview, God could save certain persons, but instead chooses to predestine them to damnation, does he not realize he also suffers from the same problem? Putting aside the obvious fact that the "just" response from God to man's sinfulness and rebellion would be to do just that - predestine them to hell, Dave apparently doesn't see that his position suffers as well.
In the non-Calvinist's worldview, is God not fully aware of who will and will not choose to accept him? Is it not His sovereignty which gives Him the "right" to allow these individuals to be born into this world anyway? Could not God save these people, if he wanted to, even if they "freely" chose to deny him? Can't God overcome the will of people if he really wanted to, even in the non-Calvinist's worldview?
If God is omnipotent, then the answer is obviously yes. Yet God has decided that some will come into this world who will not repent of their sins and call him Lord. Whether God has decreed this state of affairs (the Calvinistic view), or has simply allowed it (the non-Calvnistic view), God could save these people, if he wanted to, in either the Calvinistic or the non-Calvinistic worldview. Apparently Dave doesn't realize his own argument (if it had any merit at all) condemns his position, too.
-- BK
In the Q&A section of Dave Hunt's website (www.thebereancall.org), Dave responds to a question regarding the lack of footnotes providing a reference which identifies "some scholars" who feel that the first 15 chapters of Acts were actually written in Hebrew. I'm not going to get into the problems with this statement, as James R. White has already sufficiently addressed it on his blog.
What I want to make mention of, however, is a statement that Dave Hunt makes in his response. Dave says the following:
"White claims to go by all of Scripture, but he repeatedly cites the same few texts….Pointing to God’s sovereignty as justification for His predestination of multitudes to damnation whom He could save, White refuses to consider the hundreds of scriptures in which God pleads with Israel and all mankind to repent and turn to Him."I want to highlight the following: "Pointing to God’s sovereignty as justification for His predestination of multitudes to damnation whom He could save ..." (emphasis mine). As is often the case in Calvinist/non-Calvinist debates, the non-Calvinist suffers the same (or greater) force of the very argument he or she is levelling against Calvinism.
If Dave thinks it is a problem that in the Calvinist's worldview, God could save certain persons, but instead chooses to predestine them to damnation, does he not realize he also suffers from the same problem? Putting aside the obvious fact that the "just" response from God to man's sinfulness and rebellion would be to do just that - predestine them to hell, Dave apparently doesn't see that his position suffers as well.
In the non-Calvinist's worldview, is God not fully aware of who will and will not choose to accept him? Is it not His sovereignty which gives Him the "right" to allow these individuals to be born into this world anyway? Could not God save these people, if he wanted to, even if they "freely" chose to deny him? Can't God overcome the will of people if he really wanted to, even in the non-Calvinist's worldview?
If God is omnipotent, then the answer is obviously yes. Yet God has decided that some will come into this world who will not repent of their sins and call him Lord. Whether God has decreed this state of affairs (the Calvinistic view), or has simply allowed it (the non-Calvnistic view), God could save these people, if he wanted to, in either the Calvinistic or the non-Calvinistic worldview. Apparently Dave doesn't realize his own argument (if it had any merit at all) condemns his position, too.
-- BK
What Does God Want?
In the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, the hottest point of contention has to be the concept of “limited atonement” - the idea that God did not send his son to die for every person without exception, but rather that he sent him only for the elect. And although the Calvinist may bring many verses to the table in support of his position, he must still deal with the "all" passages - passages which seem to indicate that God loves all men without distinction, and that His desire is that all come to him in belief.
One of the most commonly quoted of these "all" passages is 1 Timothy 2:1-4.
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
In dealing with this and other such passages, Calvinists spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their Arminian friends that the word "all" does not mean all people without exception, but that it refers to a subset of mankind. There are, after all, numerous verses in scripture where even the Arminian would agree that all does not mean all without distinction (for example Matt. 2:3, 3:5, 4:8). Regardless of whether the Calvinist is correct in his assertion, the Arminian is not likely to "buy into it", given the seemingly explicit nature of this passage. After all, who can argue that the statement "who desires all men to be saved" actually means that God does not want all to be saved? To do so would be ludicrous!
It is not my intention in this article to convince Arminians that God loves a particular set of people (the elect) differently than he loves all people, even though I believe this. It is not my plan to present passage after passage that supports this assertion, although I can do so. Instead, my goal is to demonstrate to the Arminian that 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot be used to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all men without exception be saved, and I will use beliefs shared by both the Arminian and the Calvinist to accomplish this.
Before I get into these common beliefs, let me be sure that you understand exactly the point I am making. Please notice that in stating my goal I refer to God's ultimate desire that all men be saved. The qualifier "ultimate" is important to see here. I have no problem stating that God (in some sense) loves all men without exception. However, it is not God's ultimate desire that all be saved. My goal here is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4, when taken in conjunction with the forthcoming beliefs, cannot be used to show that it is.
Exactly what beliefs do Arminian believers hold to that are common with Calvinists? Omnipotence, for one. Omnipotence is the power to do whatever one desires. As an omnipotent being, God has the power (or ability) to do anything he wants to do. Another belief that both sides share is that of the non-universal nature of belief in Jesus Christ. Verses such as Matt. 7:14 and Luke 16:19-31 convince both the Calvinist and Arminian alike that not all people believe, and therefore not all people are saved.
What impact do these two common beliefs have on the universal nature of God's "desire" as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4? What argument can possibly be made that would convince an Arminian that God's ultimate desire is something other than that all men be saved? Possibly the best way to illustrate this is to present a hypothetical discussion between an Arminian and a Calvinist.
Calvinist: Is it God's desire that all be saved?
Arminian: Yes, read 1 Timothy 2:4.
Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?
Now, I want to stop here because I want you to see that this is technically the end of the argument. Given the beliefs that are common between the Calvinist and Arminian, the Calvinist has successfully made his point. However, as this may not be apparent to all, I will continue the illustration further.
Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?
Arminian: Because not all believe.
Calvinist: But why do people need to believe in order to be saved?
Arminian: Because it wouldn't be real love if people didn't willingly believe.
Calvinist: But why does it need to be "real love" in order for people to be saved? If God ultimately wants to save people, he can just save them, right? If God is omnipotent, then couldn't he just bring everyone to heaven if that is what he desires?
Arminian: Sure, he certainly could bring everyone to heaven, but then there would be people in heaven who didn't willingly choose to be there.
Calvinist: Then it sounds to me like there is a condition on being saved.
Arminian: Of course - unless a man be born-again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Being born-again involves a belief in Jesus Christ as saviour.
Calvinist: Yes, I agree with you. But who made up that rule?
Arminian: I don't understand.
Calvinist: Who is the one who determined that you must be born-again in order to spend eternity in heaven?
Arminian: Well God did.
Calvinist: So if it is God's ultimate desire that all men are saved, why did he put a condition on their salvation?
Arminian: If God were to simply bring everyone into heaven, then there would be people there who didn't love him. God only wants people in heaven who truly love him.
Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?
It might be good to stop our illustration at this point and reflect upon the hypothetical discussion so far. Although it may not be clear, the sticking point here between the Calvinist and Arminian has to do with the reason why God has chosen to introduce a condition to salvation. Neither one is questioning the fact that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation. However, the Calvinist is pressing the point that this condition only exists because God has put it in place. If God ultimately desired all men to be saved, then he could do it. God could sanctify, justify, and glorify every single person if this was what he ultimately desired, but he doesn't do this. He only does so to people who come to him in faith.
Let's continue.
Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?
Arminian: Would you want to spend an eternity with someone who didn't willingly desire to be with you?
Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then the answer is yes.
Arminian: Come on - you would want to spend eternity with someone who didn't love you?
Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then obviously the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter to me what the person felt. It wouldn't matter whether they loved me, or whether they hated me. If it were my ultimate desire to save this person and bring them to heaven, then I would simply do it, as I have the power to do so. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my desire is not unconditional, and therefore not ultimate. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my ultimate desire is that those conditions be met.
Rather than proceed to carry on this illustration any longer, I think it is helpful to interject an analogy.
Let's say you and I are used to conversing by sending emails to one another. In my latest email to you, I tell you I have found the house of my dreams. It has everything I ever wanted in a house - including a great location. I have more than enough money to purchase it, and I also have all the political clout necessary to overcome any issues that may arise. I tell you flat out that it is my desire to purchase this house. The next week you send me an email, and you ask me about the house. In my response to you, I state "I decided not to buy it".
"What changed?" you ask in your response. You were sure, based on what I had to say about the house, that I loved it, and that I would own it. There was, after all, nothing standing in the way of me getting what I wanted - not money, not political influence, not anything. So you are curious (and rightly so) as to why I don't own that house. It does not seem reasonable to you that I don't own it, based on my expressed desire to own it and combined with my ability to secure it.
In my reply I tell you that I decided not to purchase it because the current owners did not want to sell regardless of how much I offered them. I tell you that even though I could have forced them to sell I decided not to do so because I wouldn't personally be happy living in a house under those conditions. You now understand (and rightly so) that there was an even greater desire in me than to simply own the house - my greatest desire, my most ultimate desire, was to own the house without forcing the current owners out.
Now, I have chosen this specific analogy because I feel it will appeal to Arminians. It draws a parallel between purchasing a house and saving a person's soul, with the (seemingly) ultimate choice being up to the current house owner. Don't be fooled, however. Analogies prove nothing - they only serve to make a person's point of view clear by expressing it in terms which are easily understood. So although the analogy proves nothing as to how a person is actually saved, what it does (hopefully) do is demonstrate the different aspects of people's desire - specifically my desires about owning the house.
It may seem like I am taking the long way around the block in meeting my goal, but at this point I feel I have laid all the groundwork that is necessary to prove my point. When we state that it is God's desire that all are saved, as 1 Timothy 2:4 most definitely states, we must consider everything else the Bible says. We must consider the fact that all are not saved, and we must ask ourselves why this is, given that God has the ability to save everyone despite their disbelief. Simply put, if God wants all to be saved, and God can save all without condition, then why aren't all saved?
The answer should be obvious - there is something else God desires even more than for all to be saved. There is a more ultimate desire that God has, than the unconditional universal salvation of all mankind. We have a hard time seeing this at first glance, because we tend to think of God within the context of ourselves. We don't stop to think about the fact that God has the power to save all unconditionally, because we don't have the same kind of power ourselves. But once we are reminded of God's omnipotence, there is no excuse to to continue to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all are saved.
It is a human trait to universalize statements, often out of necessity. Human discourse would become just too complicated if we continually qualified the scope of everything we said by adding the necessary words in our dialogue. So, we rely upon context to make this qualification for us. This includes both the immediate context of the current conversation, as well as the broader context of shared experiences and past discussion. So it is no surprise that many would take 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean it is God's ultimate desire that all (in a universal, unqualified sense) are saved, until such time as they are challenged with the question "then why aren't all saved?"
Although this seems like a perfect time to investigate the nature of God's ultimate will, it is not my desire to do so here and now. My only goal at this point is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4 (or any of the other "all" passages) does nothing by itself to support the idea that God truly desires that all (in a universal sense) be saved.
If God ultimately wants all to be saved, and if God is able to accomplish this, then all will be saved. Since all are not saved, there must be some more ultimate desire that God has. The difference between Arminians and Calvinists over the issue of Limited Atonement comes down to what each side sees as this more ultimate desire. The fact that some more ultimate desire than that unconditional salvation of all exists is not where the dispute lies. The dispute lies in what that more ultimate desire actually is.
Arminians feel that it is the self-determined free will choice of human beings, Calvinists feel it is the sovereignty and right of God to determine the choices of human beings according to his plan and to his own glory. But let one thing be completely clear - 1 Timothy 2:4 does not provide the answer to this dispute. 1 Timothy 2:4 does not indicate what God's most ultimate will is, it only states that it is the desire of God that all be saved. And this is where I feel my goal has been met.
Since 1 Timothy 2:4 does not address the more ultimate desire of God, we must look elsewhere in scripture to find it. We must look at other passages to determine whether the Calvinist is correct, or whether the Arminian is. And because we must look elsewhere, 1 Timothy 2:4 by itself does nothing to support the Arminian's position against the Calvinist, or vice versa.
-- BK
In the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, the hottest point of contention has to be the concept of “limited atonement” - the idea that God did not send his son to die for every person without exception, but rather that he sent him only for the elect. And although the Calvinist may bring many verses to the table in support of his position, he must still deal with the "all" passages - passages which seem to indicate that God loves all men without distinction, and that His desire is that all come to him in belief.
One of the most commonly quoted of these "all" passages is 1 Timothy 2:1-4.
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
In dealing with this and other such passages, Calvinists spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their Arminian friends that the word "all" does not mean all people without exception, but that it refers to a subset of mankind. There are, after all, numerous verses in scripture where even the Arminian would agree that all does not mean all without distinction (for example Matt. 2:3, 3:5, 4:8). Regardless of whether the Calvinist is correct in his assertion, the Arminian is not likely to "buy into it", given the seemingly explicit nature of this passage. After all, who can argue that the statement "who desires all men to be saved" actually means that God does not want all to be saved? To do so would be ludicrous!
It is not my intention in this article to convince Arminians that God loves a particular set of people (the elect) differently than he loves all people, even though I believe this. It is not my plan to present passage after passage that supports this assertion, although I can do so. Instead, my goal is to demonstrate to the Arminian that 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot be used to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all men without exception be saved, and I will use beliefs shared by both the Arminian and the Calvinist to accomplish this.
Before I get into these common beliefs, let me be sure that you understand exactly the point I am making. Please notice that in stating my goal I refer to God's ultimate desire that all men be saved. The qualifier "ultimate" is important to see here. I have no problem stating that God (in some sense) loves all men without exception. However, it is not God's ultimate desire that all be saved. My goal here is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4, when taken in conjunction with the forthcoming beliefs, cannot be used to show that it is.
Exactly what beliefs do Arminian believers hold to that are common with Calvinists? Omnipotence, for one. Omnipotence is the power to do whatever one desires. As an omnipotent being, God has the power (or ability) to do anything he wants to do. Another belief that both sides share is that of the non-universal nature of belief in Jesus Christ. Verses such as Matt. 7:14 and Luke 16:19-31 convince both the Calvinist and Arminian alike that not all people believe, and therefore not all people are saved.
What impact do these two common beliefs have on the universal nature of God's "desire" as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4? What argument can possibly be made that would convince an Arminian that God's ultimate desire is something other than that all men be saved? Possibly the best way to illustrate this is to present a hypothetical discussion between an Arminian and a Calvinist.
Calvinist: Is it God's desire that all be saved?
Arminian: Yes, read 1 Timothy 2:4.
Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?
Now, I want to stop here because I want you to see that this is technically the end of the argument. Given the beliefs that are common between the Calvinist and Arminian, the Calvinist has successfully made his point. However, as this may not be apparent to all, I will continue the illustration further.
Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?
Arminian: Because not all believe.
Calvinist: But why do people need to believe in order to be saved?
Arminian: Because it wouldn't be real love if people didn't willingly believe.
Calvinist: But why does it need to be "real love" in order for people to be saved? If God ultimately wants to save people, he can just save them, right? If God is omnipotent, then couldn't he just bring everyone to heaven if that is what he desires?
Arminian: Sure, he certainly could bring everyone to heaven, but then there would be people in heaven who didn't willingly choose to be there.
Calvinist: Then it sounds to me like there is a condition on being saved.
Arminian: Of course - unless a man be born-again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Being born-again involves a belief in Jesus Christ as saviour.
Calvinist: Yes, I agree with you. But who made up that rule?
Arminian: I don't understand.
Calvinist: Who is the one who determined that you must be born-again in order to spend eternity in heaven?
Arminian: Well God did.
Calvinist: So if it is God's ultimate desire that all men are saved, why did he put a condition on their salvation?
Arminian: If God were to simply bring everyone into heaven, then there would be people there who didn't love him. God only wants people in heaven who truly love him.
Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?
It might be good to stop our illustration at this point and reflect upon the hypothetical discussion so far. Although it may not be clear, the sticking point here between the Calvinist and Arminian has to do with the reason why God has chosen to introduce a condition to salvation. Neither one is questioning the fact that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation. However, the Calvinist is pressing the point that this condition only exists because God has put it in place. If God ultimately desired all men to be saved, then he could do it. God could sanctify, justify, and glorify every single person if this was what he ultimately desired, but he doesn't do this. He only does so to people who come to him in faith.
Let's continue.
Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?
Arminian: Would you want to spend an eternity with someone who didn't willingly desire to be with you?
Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then the answer is yes.
Arminian: Come on - you would want to spend eternity with someone who didn't love you?
Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then obviously the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter to me what the person felt. It wouldn't matter whether they loved me, or whether they hated me. If it were my ultimate desire to save this person and bring them to heaven, then I would simply do it, as I have the power to do so. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my desire is not unconditional, and therefore not ultimate. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my ultimate desire is that those conditions be met.
Rather than proceed to carry on this illustration any longer, I think it is helpful to interject an analogy.
Let's say you and I are used to conversing by sending emails to one another. In my latest email to you, I tell you I have found the house of my dreams. It has everything I ever wanted in a house - including a great location. I have more than enough money to purchase it, and I also have all the political clout necessary to overcome any issues that may arise. I tell you flat out that it is my desire to purchase this house. The next week you send me an email, and you ask me about the house. In my response to you, I state "I decided not to buy it".
"What changed?" you ask in your response. You were sure, based on what I had to say about the house, that I loved it, and that I would own it. There was, after all, nothing standing in the way of me getting what I wanted - not money, not political influence, not anything. So you are curious (and rightly so) as to why I don't own that house. It does not seem reasonable to you that I don't own it, based on my expressed desire to own it and combined with my ability to secure it.
In my reply I tell you that I decided not to purchase it because the current owners did not want to sell regardless of how much I offered them. I tell you that even though I could have forced them to sell I decided not to do so because I wouldn't personally be happy living in a house under those conditions. You now understand (and rightly so) that there was an even greater desire in me than to simply own the house - my greatest desire, my most ultimate desire, was to own the house without forcing the current owners out.
Now, I have chosen this specific analogy because I feel it will appeal to Arminians. It draws a parallel between purchasing a house and saving a person's soul, with the (seemingly) ultimate choice being up to the current house owner. Don't be fooled, however. Analogies prove nothing - they only serve to make a person's point of view clear by expressing it in terms which are easily understood. So although the analogy proves nothing as to how a person is actually saved, what it does (hopefully) do is demonstrate the different aspects of people's desire - specifically my desires about owning the house.
It may seem like I am taking the long way around the block in meeting my goal, but at this point I feel I have laid all the groundwork that is necessary to prove my point. When we state that it is God's desire that all are saved, as 1 Timothy 2:4 most definitely states, we must consider everything else the Bible says. We must consider the fact that all are not saved, and we must ask ourselves why this is, given that God has the ability to save everyone despite their disbelief. Simply put, if God wants all to be saved, and God can save all without condition, then why aren't all saved?
The answer should be obvious - there is something else God desires even more than for all to be saved. There is a more ultimate desire that God has, than the unconditional universal salvation of all mankind. We have a hard time seeing this at first glance, because we tend to think of God within the context of ourselves. We don't stop to think about the fact that God has the power to save all unconditionally, because we don't have the same kind of power ourselves. But once we are reminded of God's omnipotence, there is no excuse to to continue to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all are saved.
It is a human trait to universalize statements, often out of necessity. Human discourse would become just too complicated if we continually qualified the scope of everything we said by adding the necessary words in our dialogue. So, we rely upon context to make this qualification for us. This includes both the immediate context of the current conversation, as well as the broader context of shared experiences and past discussion. So it is no surprise that many would take 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean it is God's ultimate desire that all (in a universal, unqualified sense) are saved, until such time as they are challenged with the question "then why aren't all saved?"
Although this seems like a perfect time to investigate the nature of God's ultimate will, it is not my desire to do so here and now. My only goal at this point is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4 (or any of the other "all" passages) does nothing by itself to support the idea that God truly desires that all (in a universal sense) be saved.
If God ultimately wants all to be saved, and if God is able to accomplish this, then all will be saved. Since all are not saved, there must be some more ultimate desire that God has. The difference between Arminians and Calvinists over the issue of Limited Atonement comes down to what each side sees as this more ultimate desire. The fact that some more ultimate desire than that unconditional salvation of all exists is not where the dispute lies. The dispute lies in what that more ultimate desire actually is.
Arminians feel that it is the self-determined free will choice of human beings, Calvinists feel it is the sovereignty and right of God to determine the choices of human beings according to his plan and to his own glory. But let one thing be completely clear - 1 Timothy 2:4 does not provide the answer to this dispute. 1 Timothy 2:4 does not indicate what God's most ultimate will is, it only states that it is the desire of God that all be saved. And this is where I feel my goal has been met.
Since 1 Timothy 2:4 does not address the more ultimate desire of God, we must look elsewhere in scripture to find it. We must look at other passages to determine whether the Calvinist is correct, or whether the Arminian is. And because we must look elsewhere, 1 Timothy 2:4 by itself does nothing to support the Arminian's position against the Calvinist, or vice versa.
-- BK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
