There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, 
mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination,” “Calvinism,” “Total Depravity,” “Inerrancy,” and “Complementarianism”, just to name a few that I personally have to deal with. Proponents are more often than not on the defensive, having to explain again and again why it is they don’t mean what people think they mean.
The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding. Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must always be asked.
Do you mean:
- That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
- That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
- That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
- That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
- That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?
Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean.
When it comes to the first three options, most Calvinist would agree that a person is not forced to make a choice, is responsible for their choices, and is the active agent behind those choices. They would reject the forth believing that a person is not free to do whatever they desire (for example, no matter how much one desires, he or she cannot read the thoughts of another person, fly without wings, or transport from one location to another just by thinking about the desired location).
It is important to note at this point, there is no conflict. No matter what theological persuasion you adhere to, most of historic Christianity has agreed that the first three are true, while the fourth is false.
It is with the fifth option there is disagreement.
Does a person have the ability to choose against their nature?
This question gets to the heart of the issue. Here we introduce a new and more defined term (hang with me here): “Libertarian Free-will” or “Libertarian Freedom.” Libertarian freedom can be defined briefly thus:
Libertarian Freedom: “The power of contrary choice.”
If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. If there choice is determined, then the freedom is self-limited. Therefore, there is no “power” of contrary choice for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be. I know, I know . . . slow down. Let me explain.
First, it is important to get this out of the way. To associate this denial of libertarian freedom exclusively with Calvinism would be misleading. St. Augustine was the first to deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. Until the forth century, it was simply assumed that people were free and responsible, but they had yet to flesh out what this meant. Augustine further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He argued that people choose according to who they are. If they are good, they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These choices are free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice.
What you have to ask is this: If “free will” means that we can choose against our nature (i.e. the power of contrary choice), if “free will” means that we can choose against who we are, what does this mean? What does this look like? How does a free person make a choice that is contrary to who they are? Who is actually making the choice? What is “free will” in this paradigm?
If one can choose according to who they are not, then they are not making the choice and this is not really freedom at all, no? Therefore, there is, at the very least, a self-determinism at work here. This is a limit on free will and, therefore, a necessary denial of true libertarian freedom.
Think about all that goes into making “who you are.” We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called “total depravity.” Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.
But even if this were not the case,—even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the set up for any given “free will” decision made:
- You did not choose when you were to be born.
- You did not choose where you were to be born.
- You did not choose your parents.
- You did not choose your influences early in your life.
- You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
- You did not choose your genetics.
- You did not choose your temperament.
- You did not choose your looks.
- You did not choose your body type.
- You did not choose your physical abilities.
All of these factors play an influencing role in who you are at the time of any given decision. Yes, your choice is free, but it has you behind them. Therefore, you are free to choose according to you from whom you are not able to free yourself!
Now, I must reveal something here once again that might surprise many of you. This view is held by both Calvinists and Arminians alike. Neither position believes that a person can choose against their nature. Arminians, however, differ from Calvinists in that they believe in the doctrine of prevenient grace, which essentially neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin—the antagonism toward Gog—is relieved so that the person can make a true “free will” decision.
However, we still have some massive difficulties. Here are a couple:
A neutralized will amounts to your absence from the choice itself.
Changing the nature of a person so that their predispositions are neutral does not really help. We are back to the question What does a neutralized will look like? Does it erase all of the you behind the choice? If you are neutralized and liberated from you, then who is making the choice? How can you be held responsible for a choice that you did not really make, whether good or bad?
A neutralized will amounts to perpetual indecision. Think about this, if a person had true libertarian freedom, where there were no coercive forces, personal or divine, that influenced the decision, would a choice ever be made? If you have no reason to choose A or B, then neither would ever be chosen. Ronald Nash illustrates this by presenting a dog who has true libertarian freedom trying to decide between two bowls of dog food. He says that the dog would end up dying of starvation. Why? Because he would never have any reason to choose one over the other. It is like a balanced scale, it will never tilt to the right or the left unless the weights (influence) on one side is greater than the other. Then, no matter how little weight (influence) is added to a balanced scale, it will always choose accordingly.
A neutralized will amounts to arbitrary decisions, which one cannot be held responsible for.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that libertarian choice could be made. Let’s say that the dog did choose one food bowl over the other. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. But this option is clearly outside a biblical worldview of responsibility and judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the outcome for the fight for true libertarian free-will comes at the expense of true responsibility!
In conclusion: while I believe in free will, I don’t believe in libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.
Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside outside of fatalism, and we don’t want to go there.
Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’”
Thoughts? Do you believe in free will?
414 replies to "A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will”"
So if God could have made a world where no one sins then what implications can we draw from that? You do not have to answer; it’s more of a rhetorical question.
As for personhood and LFW, just read the thread. Again though it just goes to show how bankrupt LFW is as a system. Even so called adherents to it do not agree with how they define it and what it does and does not mean.
As for why you accepted and your neighbor didn’t, it shows that salvation is not all of grace; that God “elected” you because he saw that you would accept and if you do not see the clear un-biblical ramifications of that well then so be it.
As for questions on my plate, I have addressed the most pertinent ones
Thanks Jake.
You said:
—
I don’t intend to be taking the creatures’ side as opposed to God’s. Rather, it’s just my understanding that God has extended an offer to us — the blood of Christ — and that He asks us to respond to that offer.
—
I wonder if you would go back and re-read post #192, as a response to this statement here? What do you think about what I’ve said?
Also, you quoted Rom 5:8 which says “God demonstrated his love for us, in that while were yet sinners, Christ died for us”
I wonder what you should say if I asserted that Paul was speaking exclusively of believers? Because in the very next verse he says “we have been justified by His blood, and we shall be saved from wrath through him”
In other words, the “us” whom God showed his love towards, is not (in the context of this particular verse, anyways) 100% of humanity, but believers only. So you cannot really use that particular verse to speak of God “giving a choice to us”.
Finally, I am curious why you think the doctrine of regeneration is brainwashing?
Eze 36:25-27
(25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
(26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
(27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
I see that as nothing less than salvation by grace!
Ah, Cherylu and Michael, I will be the first person to admit that i have presuppositions. Please don’t misunderstand, I was not trying to argue that YOU have them, but I don’t. That wasn’t my intention at all. I’m sorry if it came out that way.
I surely have my presuppositions. I’m firmly convinced that 2 pet 3:9 and John 3:16 have certain meanings, and they affect my interpretation of other areas of scripture 🙂
I am willing to openly discuss what I believe about those verses and why. I can go into the context, the grammar, and the Greek. I can provide definitions of words, etc. In other words, I can offer contextual and grammatical reasons for my interpretations of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9. I must note, these are actually part of the reason I’m a convinced Calvinist now, after much struggling!
For example, what would you say if I told you 2 Peter 3:9 was referring to the elect only? 🙂 Would you be willing to hear me out?
Jake,
You wrote,
“I think God’s glory is more clearly displayed when He receives love that is freely given, then when people love Him simply because He has compelled them to do so. Love freely given is better than love given under coercion. Do you agree or disagree with this?”
I understand your point– if I tried to force someone to love me, by threats and at gunpoint, so to speak, then they might be frightened into saying they care for me, but it wouldn’t really be love.
Perhaps we might attempt to view this from God’s vantage point.
Suppose people hate me for the reason than their hearts are so depraved that they see me not as worthy of their love, but only as one whose existence reminds them of their guilt and moral failure. They are completely dead in their sin and have no spiritual life in them, no ability to understand the truth about me. The only way for them to love me and see me as the loving God that I truly am is to touch their hearts by the power of my supernatural love and grace, causing them to see me as desirable and lovely.
Without this touch they continue to be blinded by their own sin and by the deception of the enemy, and will never turn to me. With this touch, their eyes are opened to the truth that Jesus Christ died to take away their sin and guilt and become able to see it and receive it. They come to understand that Jesus died in their place and gives them His righteousness in place of their guilt and condemnation.
“He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Cor 5:21
Now regarding why God doesn’t do this for all, it seems the answer Scripture gives is that He leaves some to perish in their sin, which is no injustice. As quoted earlier, in Romans 9: 22-23 Paul presents his inspired speculation, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared…
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for glory” … (the verses were partly cut off).
Joseff,
“For example, what would you say if I told you 2 Peter 3:9 was referring to the elect only? Would you be willing to hear me out?”
I kind of figured that is what you believed since I have heard the same argument many times before. But I am certainly willing to hear how you came to that conclusion.
“For example, what would you say if I told you 2 Peter 3:9 was referring to the elect only?”
I would, except that I’ve been over this a dozen times before. Even CMP (the writer of this blog, and obviously a Calvinist) will not agree with you on this one. In fact I’m pretty sure that John Piper would not agree with this one (I could be wrong here – the stuff I’ve read by him is kinda fuzzy on this one – maybe you know a specific quote that answer it). This is why he believes in the “two wills” theory.
Also this has nothing to do with my syllogism as that concerns the attributes used to describe God in the Bible, not what His will is concerning who should perish.
“As for personhood and LFW, just read the thread. Again though it just goes to show how bankrupt LFW is as a system. Even so called adherents to it do not agree with how they define it and what it does and does not mean.”
I am satisfied that by and large, my own beliefs are internally consistent, but that doesn’t mean that I have the same exact beliefs as those who profess similar beliefs. The fact that you and I disagree on the particulars of soteriology doesn’t render Christianity as a whole, which we do agree on, bankrupt. You are relying too heavily on hyperbole.
“Free will” is not the solution to the problem…it IS the problem.
God’s will is the antidote.
Josef (post 247)
“Person A was either smarter, less prideful, more spiritual, more humble. SOMETHING. There was SOME difference, some intrinsic good quality or factor about person A.”
Why must needs this be the case? I don’t contend nor do I necessarily believe that decisions must all be explicable in terms of cause and effect. I think we can identify /boundaries/ present in any decision (eg can’t choose to fly, or to not have been born, etc), and we can identify influences (eg he was broke when he chose to rob the bank), but what is it that “flips the switch”? I don’t know.
“I did X to get into heaven. = I’m saved by what I did.”
I don’t see it this way at all. I don’t see any incompatibility between being “saved by grace through faith” and the view I espouse. We’re not saved by what we did, in the same way someone rescued at see wouldn’t extol himself for all the work he did in grabbing hold of that life preserver — no! The person who threw the life preserver and pulled the person to safety did all the work and gets all the credit.
I see this as something of a straw man; have you ever heard an Arminian boast about how his acceptance of Christ’s salvation is in some way noteworthy? I never have.
Joseff (post 252),
“I wonder if you would go back and re-read post #192, as a response to this statement here? What do you think about what I’ve said?”
Interesting thoughts! Thanks for directing my attention to that. I’m not partial to the idea of prevenient grace, but I’ll think about whether your observations would influence the view that I do hold.
“In other words, the “us” whom God showed his love towards, is not (in the context of this particular verse, anyways) 100% of humanity, but believers only. So you cannot really use that particular verse to speak of God “giving a choice to us”.”
My view would be that even before salvation, it’s possible for someone on the outside looking in to perceive that God /offers/ the gift of his love to all humanity.
“Finally, I am curious why you think the doctrine of regeneration is brainwashing?”
I guess I’d simply say that God’s regenerating us in response to a specific request to be regenerated seems more compatible with the idea of a God as loving. Look at how many times Jesus said “repent!” (literally, “change your mind”) — why would He say this if the only people capable of complying with this exhortation would require God’s fiat decision to elect them to regeneration?
Alexander (post 254),
I like the way you expressed your position. It definitely gives me something to think about. Thanks for the contribution!
I would modify things slightly and say that I don’t think the Calvinist view amounts to a conversion at gunpoint, ie that people are given a choice but it’s not a real choice. I would say rather that it reads to me like people being robots, and God simply changes their software for a new and improved model. But I still think your post addresses this view, as well. Just wanted to clarify how I’m looking at it.
Thanks again.
Cherylu and Michael, thank you for hearing me out.
You are correct, John Piper adheres the idea that God, in some sense, truly desires to see everyone saved. I believe this idea is a viable idea, but not a viable interpretation of THIS particular text (2 Peter 3:9)
To reiterate, I think it’s perfectly fine for Calvinists to hold to the idea that God, in some sense, has a desire to save everyone, but that He lets other factors come in and intervene to prevent that desire from coming to pass. (As Piper argues, the “intervening” factor for Arminians is free will, for Calvinists it’s “Because God saves freely”) I personally do not hold to this idea.
However, I do not think grammatically, and contextually, THIS particular text (2 Peter 3:9) lends any support to that particular idea.
If you read 2 Peter 3:1-8, you will see Peter continually address “you” and “them”. Who is the “you”? Well, Peter says at the beginning of the chapter “This is the second letter I am writing to you, beloved”. If it’s the second letter, who is the first letter written to? First Peter 1:1-2 says “Peter writing…to God’s elect”.
So, 2nd Peter, which includes chapter 3, is being written to God’s elect. So when Peter keeps saying “you”, he’s talking to God’s elect, right? When he says “them”, he’s talking about the scoffers (v3), those that overlook (v5), the ungodly (v7).
Verse 8 says “but do not overlook this fact, beloved…”. So he’s speaking directly to “the beloved”, or the “you”, or “God’s elect”
The very next verse is verse 9. Peter says “He is patient towards YOU” (not wanting any to perish). Patient towards YOU. “you”, who? Is the pronoun “you” suddenly not a reference to the people ti has been a reference to throughout the entire chapter? Do we throw grammar away?
It is simply following the pronouns my friends. God is patient towards YOU not wanting any (by implication) of YOU, to perish. (cont)
(part 2)
So the verse is not a verse about salvation, but a verse about Christ’s second coming. Peter is explaining why God is delaying the end times. Because he is patiently waiting for all of “YOU” to repent. In other words, God is waiting until his last “sheep” in human history enters the Shepard’s fold, and then Christ will return. He is waiting for them all, because he’s not willing that any of them perish. This is exactly what Jesus says all throughout John’s gospel. “I will lose none of them”, etc.
Please, grab an easy to read translation, such as the ESV, and go back and read all of chapter 3. Don’t just read verse 9 in solitude. That is to read it out of context.
As RC Sproul says, far from being a verse that does damage to Calvinism, it in fact is one of the strongest verses in favor of it! God is not willing that any of His elect should perish, so he delays the 2nd of coming of Christ, he is patiently waiting, before He destroys the earth (very next verse, verse 10)
Jake, you said:
—-
“I guess I’d simply say that God’s regenerating us in response to a specific request to be regenerated”
—
I understand what you are saying. But if it is true that Bible tells us that all unregenerate, fallen men are completely hostile towards God and find the gospel of Christ foolishness, why would any of them request to have a heart change?
For example, I hate abortion. I am hostile towards it. My heart and mind is against it. So why would I ever request that my heart and mind be changed so that I could be in favor of it?
Makes no sense.
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9
Obviously the above verse isn’t a blanket statement indicating that since God wishes all to reach repentance, all will be saved (unless one is arguing the universalist view that all will be saved). But since all are not in fact saved, then 2 Peter 3:9 must either be addressed to the believer only, or must be stating a desire of God that is not fulfilled in actuality.
Interestingly Calvin actually understood it as the latter, “But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.”
I think Calvin’s interpretation makes a certain amount of sense. In 2 Peter 3:9 we see God’s revealed will– the gospel– His desire that all receive Christ and escape condemnation. Yet since God’s purposes cannot be thwarted, and all are not in fact saved, we must conclude that it is not His secret purpose to save all (though we see in this verse that His heart is that all would be saved).
Yet a less problematic explanation might be to take Peter’s “you” as addressing the believer, as Joseff, and apparently R. C. Sproul too, interpret the verse.
Thanks Alexander. I stand firm by the grammatical flow of the pronouns. 2 Peter is a very real letter written from a real person to other real persons.
Writing involves grammar. Grammar cannot be avoided, lest we make language meaningless. We MUST assign the right meanings to pronouns. I think Peter has done this for us. Just follow the pronouns “you” all throughout the chapter. It is clear that Peter is addressing the fact that God is patient towards “you”, not “you and them”
He has strived for the last 8 verses to show the difference between the “you” and the “them”.
But I see a problem in thinking that the you in II Peter 3:9 is only addressed to the elect. After all, all of the elect that Peter is referring to in these two books are already saved. So if we follow the pronouns as you say Joseff, are the you or us as some versions say, not speaking only to the elect that are already saved? If that is the case, how does it make any sense to tell saved people that God is waiting for them to repent?
“You know I’ve heard Calvinist after Calvinist claim this and I just don’t buy it. Having actually read most of the ante-nicene fathers it seems brutally apparent to me that 1) the were appealing to the same verses Arminian’s appeal to to defend their case, 2) their opponents were appealing to the same verses Calvinists appeal too and they were responding with interpretations of those verses similar to what Arminian’s respond with, and 3) the beliefs of the Gnostics with regards to fatalism are eerily similar to Calvinisitic beliefs though Calvinists try to find loop holes to dodge the label.”
I can’t begin to comment upon how wrong this statement is. Every historical theology professor I’ve ever known acknowledges this. I can’t believe that you’ve read them too extensively in context if your ignoring this. Context is everything, and they are fighting against material determinism. That’s a fact. Read them when they comment upon our enslavement to sin, and see if they don’t think we’re slaves to it.
Chreryl,
I’m sure Joseff will answer for himself, but my quick answer would be that Peter is not in this verse telling these particular believers that God is waiting for them to repent, but he’s saying they must be patient as they await the 2nd coming of Christ. Since all of the elect are not yet gathered in, Peter says the 2nd coming of Jesus is mercifully delayed, until all who would reach repentance (the elect) have been gathered in.
I see what you are saying Cherylu, but look at the verse:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,…
What “promise” is Peter referring to? It’s his promise to return. Not the promise of salvation.
For example, if I hold a meeting for accountants, and 50 accountants show up, and I keep saying “you”, I am directly speaking to those 50 accountants. But what I say also applies to all other accountants in the world that didn’t show up. Because what I’m saying applies to “accountants in general”, not just those 50.
Peter could have been writing to “some elect that were already saved by faith”, but what he is saying still applies “to God’s elect” period, regardless where they are in their salvation. This is precisely why peter is stressing that God is slow to fulfill his promise. He’s waiting for all of them to repent (though some of them receiving the letter may have already done so)
Cheryl,
I think the bigger problem is with taking that passage as referring to everyone. If God is waiting for all of the elect to be born and be brought to faith by Him, which is answering why Christ may be waiting as long as He is to return, then that makes sense.
But if God is waiting for people to repent because time somehow may open people’s hearts and minds, then why doesn’t He wait forever, since He wants everyone to be saved? If time is the factor, then why not give more time? Why not lengthen everyone’s life, and refrain from coming back until all people have been born and lived out their million year lifespans? If He really wants them all to be saved, and time has something to do with their decision, it makes no sense to shorten life or return before this has happened.
Furthermore, I would like to know how time itself turns a slave to self into a servant of Christ?
Alex makes a good point.
The point is, there’s no possible, grammatical way that Peter is addressing, in verse 9, “you” and “them”. He’s only addressing “you”. And Peter himself establishes who the “you” is, in the very prior verse (verse 8), as well as the intro to Book 1, chapter 1, verse 1-2, and the intro to Book 2, Chapter 3.
2 Pet 3:8-9
But do not overlook this one fact, ***BELOVED***, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward ***YOU***, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Joseff,
If (and I am not saying at this point that I am) I were to agree that this verse speaks only of the elect, can you eliminate every other verse in the Bible that makes similar statements or that says Jesus died for all–is the Saviour of all?
There are quite a few out there that all have to be shown to not mean what my understading is before I could accept your position on this.
BTW, the tension and mystery of which Michael speaks isn’t simply a Calvinist understanding. Even Irenaeus held that both were true and to be held equally in tension with one another.
Cherylu, I would never eliminate them my friend! They are scripture! Nor would I pretend they don’t sound univerasalistic. Nor would I foolishly try to argue that “world” only means “the elect”. That’s grammatically impossible as well (except some cases which I could show you)
The truth is, there are plenty of articles and books out there, and well written articles that deal with the “problem texts”. John Owen’s book is full of them. He is very sound.
Some other considerations for you is that you need to acknowledge that sometimes phrases are figures of speech, and that the authors’ intent was not to say anything profoundly theological about the elect or every person individually. As you may or may not know English “world” is the Greek word “kosmos” which has not one, but around 15 definitions!! “all men” is generally the greek word “pas” which has several definitions, and more often than not it means “all colletively” (or in other words, all of whom I’m referring to)
Another consideration for you is that sometimes the authors and speakers were constantly trying to fix the Jewish mindset that the messiah was only for the Jews. Remember, the Jews were obsessed with their race, they thought Christ was coming for them only. So constantly the authors and speakers were saying “No, Jesus has come for the whole world – not just Israel”. In other words, “whole world” often times mean “Jews and gentiles” as opposed to “Just jews”
A statement like that isn’t necessarily telling us the extent of the atonement or Christ’s intentions in who he will save. We must go to other passages of scripture that are more clear where the speaker is actually seeking to address those questions, and there’s many of them.
In other words, those broad, universal, sweeping statements shouldn’t be where we put all of our eggs. A universal statement doesn’t immediately de-limit a limiting statement. I would argue though, that the opposite is…
Joseff,
Here is the notes on the verse from the .NET Bible. Figure they might interest you as they do me. I of course don’t completely agree with what is said – but it is good information.
“He does not wish for any to perish.”
This verse has been a battleground between Arminians and Calvinists. The former argue that God wants all people to be saved, but either through inability or restriction of his own sovereignty does not interfere with peoples’ wills. Some of the latter argue that the “any” here means “any of you” and that all the elect will repent before the return of Christ, because this is God’s will. Both of these positions have problems. The “any” in this context means “any of you.” (This can be seen by the dependent participle which gives the reason why the Lord is patient “toward you.”) There are hints throughout this letter that the readership may be mixed, including both true believers and others who are “sitting on the fence” as it were. But to make the equation of this readership with the elect is unlikely. This would seem to require, in its historical context, that all of these readers would be saved. But not all who attend church know the Lord or will know the Lord. Simon the Magician, whom Peter had confronted in Acts 8, is a case in point. This is evident in contemporary churches when a pastor addresses the congregation as “brothers, sisters, saints, etc.,” yet concludes the message with an evangelistic appeal. When an apostle or pastor addresses a group as “Christian” he does not necessarily think that every individual in the congregation is truly a Christian. Thus, the literary context seems to be against the Arminian view, while the historical context seems to be against (one representation of) the Calvinist view.
CONT…
CONT…
The answer to this conundrum is found in the term “wish” (a participle in Greek from the verb boulomai). It often represents a mere wish, or one’s desiderative will, rather than one’s resolve. Unless God’s will is viewed on the two planes of his desiderative and decretive will (what he desires and what he decrees), hopeless confusion will result. The scriptures amply illustrate both that God sometimes decrees things that he does not desire and desires things that he does not decree. It is not that his will can be thwarted, nor that he has limited his sovereignty. But the mystery of God’s dealings with humanity is best seen if this tension is preserved. Otherwise, either God will be perceived as good but impotent or as a sovereign taskmaster. Here the idea that God does not wish for any to perish speaks only of God’s desiderative will, without comment on his decretive will.
Me Talking – and thus we have the “two wills” theory.
BTW my point in sharing that was simply to point out that things aren’t as cut and dry with regards to this verse as you would like to make them. It is at best unclear.
Thanks Michael, those are good points.
That reminds me, RC Sproul pointed out that God’s “willing” in this verse could possibly be either his “desire” or his “decree”.
I’m convinced that it’s actually a reference to God’s “decretive” will. (decree) Therefore, it’s actually saying that God is literally decreeing/willing that all of whomever Peter is referring to will be saved and cannot run the possibility of being anything other than saved.
If that’s true, and Peter is saying that God is patient towards 100% of humanity because he is patiently delaying Christ’s return because he’s willing that all of them be saved, then the verse actually teaches universalism, not Christianity.
Hodge,
It would seem Norman Geisler would disagree with you as pointed out earlier by AP.
Joseff,
When Jesus said He would draw all men to Him, did He only mean the elect?
When He wept over Jerusalem and spoke of how often He “longed to gather her but she would not” (my paraphase by memory) did that mean He only wanted to gather the elect but they wouldn’t let Him?
When he told Israel that He took no pleasure in the death of the wicked and pleaded with them to turn instead of dying was he only speaking to the elect? Why would He have to plead with the elect to turm to Him if He will just at some point regenerate them so they will follow Him?
Etc, etc.
Why do you think we have to interpret all of these verses in the light of Romans 9 instead of interpreting Romans 9 in light of them?
You know, Michael T and I have both repeatedly made reference to the fact that Calvinism, as we understand it seems to do violence to the normal understanding of language.
If anyone here has addressed that point, I have missed it. I know Lisa and CMP did way back at the start of the thread, but what we are referring to goes way beyond their answer.
Would someone please try to address that concern? As you must be able to tell from our repeated comments, it is a rather large issue for both of us.
To echo what Cheryl said, language is a huge issue for me. For instance John Piper once said that saying “God is good” simply means God does whatever brings Himself the most glory. I could only conclude from this that Piper was saying that God could essentially behave however He wants to and so long as doing so glorifies Himself he is “good”. Now that’s a great explanation, only problem is that the word “good” in the Bible would then have absolutely no connection whatsoever to how the average person now or then understands the word “good”. Thus defining good in this manner undermines the very language we claim God has used to reveal Himself and renders it meaningless and unintelligible.
Thanks Cherylu, I forgot to address that point.
The concepts of love and good and justice and whatever are often going to mean something different to those who hold different presupps. For instance, if “love” always means acceptance to the average American, then any act that rejects someone who practices a destructive behavior toward either self or others would be unloving. However, according to Scripture, “love” and “good” have to do with glorifying God by seeking to preserve His covenant children. “Love” for God and His children has to do with exalting Him appropriately and displaying His character as God. Therefore, love also has to do with the suppression of chaotic agents that seek to destroy His image and covenant community, at the same time existing to display His power over those chaotic agents in their rebellion. Hence, love and good must be displayed both through the merciful preservation of those who He chooses to adopt as sons, as well as punishment of those who He chooses to leave in their rebellion as chaotic agents. “Love” and “good” cannot be accomplished without this, since both are needed to exalt God (who is Triune BTW, so it’s not simply one person self serving), and for the preservation of His adopted sons.
Furthermore, If “love” and “good” must be bound to the Arminian concept, then it is simply begging the question to speak of their definitions, since any discussion that would suggest that their definitions conflict with what they are assumed to mean are dismissed at the get-go.
So it’s not really that one group is distorting the meanings of the words. It’s rather that one group is assuming that they concepts X must imply Y or they are no longer X. The other group just doesn’t grant this assumption.
Finally, God can’t do whatever He wants. He has to act according to love and good as defined above. Hence, to not convey His full character to His people to not exalt Himself, nor to complete His people.
Michael,
I must have missed the Norm Geisler quote. Geisler, of course, would disagree, since I don’t think he’s very familiar with the historical issues as much (he’s not an historical theologian). I only say that after being aware of his understanding of the Reformed historical issues. I would simply keep going back to Augustine to understand the Fathers (materially free to make any possible choice, spiritually bound by the love of self to choose one’s own lordship over oneself).
Hodge,
You just did nothing more then explicate the Piper quote I mentioned. I submit that defining love, good, mercy, etc. to mean God glorifying Himself renders these words absurd. I know you don’t concede that point. However, if your view is the case then no one should, in our society, use the word God, and merciful, loving, good, etc in the same sentence and I suspect this to be true in just about every other society in history. We should also seriously consider translating these words differently.
Michael T and Cheryl,
I think the only way to see & define the goodness of God is to view goodness as part of His total personality. The Bible describes God as completely holy, perfectly righteous, omniscient, all-powerful, absolutely sovereign, slow to anger, full of mercy and compassion, righteous in His judgment, angry at sin, at times mysterious and incomprehensible, among other things. And in Jesus, God in the flesh, we get further clarification of what God is like– full of grace and truth, humble, long-suffering, patient, One who came to serve not be served, without sin, compassionate, passionate against sin, sacrificial. Again these lists are incomplete.
But this is the God described as good in Scripture– One who possesses all of these qualities and others besides, and holds them all together in a kind of tension. I say tension because sometimes it may be difficult to see how the mercy, compassion and love of God harmonizes with His absolute commitment to perfect, holy justice. The same Jesus who willingly died an ignoble death and did not resist evildoers, who washed His disciples feet to show them the full extent of His love, was also One who was fiercely angry at the sin of those who made His Father’s house into a market and at the religious leaders who self-righteously led their followers away from God by their false teachings. He warned of an eternal hell where those who rejected His Good News message would be punished forever. He warned of the wrath of God that remains on sinners who do not obey Him. So what does it mean to be good? Jesus has said, “no one is good except God alone (Mark 10:18)”. This complex God, perfectly holy and just while at the same time loving beyond all our comprehension, is a good God. So then what the Bible describes God doing– sovereignly ruling the universe and predestining some to salvation while passing over others, must be viewed as good, for these actions arise from the God who alone is good.
Hodege,
If I am following what you said correctly, you are saying that love and good from a Calvinist perspective only pertains to the elect and that the non elect are not included in it? Am I reading you correctly here or am I totally misunderstanding you?
I guess my major question here is this: How can God who said He is love be showing love to one that He either deliberately passes over and does not grant any chance to be saved, or even, in the more extreme forms of Calvinism–like Piper as discussed above–even actively decree to rebel because he says there has to be evil in the world? How in the world is there any love shown to that person? Or for that matter, any goodness either?
Somehow, I don’t think a person that has been decreed to be a rebellious one so that evil and punishment can exist in the world and then gets sent to hell because of that would think that God was either good or loving.
Alexander,
You haven’t raised any objection to my contention here other than to concede my point. You seek to redefine “good” and “love” and “mercy”, and “grace” in terms that are so foreign to the ordinary meaning of these words that it is completely ridiculous. I might as well say Hitler was good since he was acting according to his nature. God’s goodness must be related to what goodness is understood to be by humanity otherwise Him describing Himself as such is disingenuous and a brutal assault on language. I could just as easily say being “predestined” means having the ability to choose whatever you want to without any outside influence whatsoever and no outside entity knowing the result of the decision. The words themselves have meanings that are so twisted that we can’t know what they mean.
As to reconciling God’s goodness, wrath, justice, righteousness, etc. this is a whole different issue and one to which your answers to the question of Arminianism vs. Calvinism at hand will play a role. Suffice to say I have very little trouble reconciling these attributes with one another. The problem is not whether or not God is just in punishing sinners. The question is whether or not He is just in doing so when He is the ultimate reason they are sinners
“The problem is not whether or not God is just in punishing sinners. The question is whether or not He is just in doing so when He is the ultimate reason they are sinners”.
My problem/question in a nutshell. Only I would probably say “just and loving”. This is certainly not any normal understanding of just or loving either one. It is a totally foreign concept to the usual meaning of either of those words.
Here let me explicate this a little bit more. The moral argument for the existence of God goes as follows.
1. If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. God exists.
Most Christians would accept this to be true and would further believe that the God of the Bible is the foundation for our moral values. In the Bible God has used the language of humanity to reveal Himself to us. In revealing Himself he has often described His nature using human moral terms. Now either language is an adequate tool for God to reveal what needs to be revealed (though certainly not to completely reveal Himself) or it isn’t (as suggested by Post-moderns). My contention here is that the way you are describing God’s goodness or love is so foreign to how humanity throughout human history has understood these moral terms and to call into question whether or not we can know God at all.
Michael,
“However, if your view is the case then no one should, in our society, use the word God, and merciful, loving, good, etc in the same sentence and I suspect this to be true in just about every other society in history. We should also seriously consider translating these words differently.”
But why? Because the actions of God don’t meet what you think these words imply? God must be the grounding for all love and good, Michael, or the words truly have no meaning. You seem to want to say that good and love exist apart from their glorification of God. Michael, to be honest with you, you seem to default to this ghost standard whenever you want to say that something is extreme or warped. The fact of the matter is that you are assuming what love and good mean and then saying that we are redefining it. No, you and your culture have redefined it. How does God sending people he knows will sin to hell accord with Him being loving and good? Christ said that it would have been better if Judas had never been born. Why did God let him be born if it was better for him not to be born, when in fact God knew what he would do? Arminians don’t escape your redefinition argument. How is it loving to send people to hell? How is it loving for God to make them in the first place, knowing that they will be in torment forevermore? Answer: love and good has to do with His glory and His people. The eternal suppression of chaotic agents who attack both of these and would destroy the universe is good and loving because it glorifies who God is and displays His mercy for His children. So if I was an Arminian, how does the making of these people accord with good and love? The same as above. How else would you answer it without becoming an Neo-Theist?
Cherylu,
God has love and does good to all people, but He only gives His eternal love and doing of good to His people. This is a special love that only people in covenant with Him receive. Your objection is addressed by what I said to Michael above. I could make the same argument about God’s foreknowledge and hell.
“In the Bible God has used the language of humanity to reveal Himself to us. In revealing Himself he has often described His nature using human moral terms.”
The problem is that language exists in larger contexts, not individual words. We get the concepts from the theology of the Bible as a whole. So it is through human language, but the concepts of love and good in the context of the Bible, and within that of the 21st Cent postmodern are two different animals.
Hodge,
1. Define love and goodness for me. Not as it applies to God, but as it applies generally. Your definition of goodness for instance seems to be “acting in accordance with ones nature in order to display ones greatness and bring glory to themselves”. I don’t know of any culture which would define “good” that way, but maybe I’m just ignorant.
2. How is it loving to send people to hell? Very simple. They chose of their own free will to be there. It has nothing to do with love or hate, in fact I along with all Arminian’s I know of believe that God loves those in hell and wishes they would have repented. As C.S. Lewis once said, “Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”
3. “Answer: love and good has to do with His glory and His people. The eternal suppression of chaotic agents who attack both of these and would destroy the universe is good and loving because it glorifies who God is and displays His mercy for His children.”
Back to a wayyy earlier statement. Why not save all then?? I mean is God incapable? He surely could turn all these chaotic agents into friendly ones. Furthermore, it seems improper to term these agents “chaotic” since in the Calvinist worldview they are simply carrying out God’s plan and doing what He had predestined and ordained for them to do from the start. In fact I don’t see how the Calvinist system allows for true evil.
Hodge,
Also would you agree that the English word “Good” has a certain meaning to it? I don’t think the way you have described God’s goodness is in anyway compatible with any of the standard definitions of this word (feel free to prove me wrong). Therefore God should not be referred to as “good” and passages in the Bible describing Him as such should be translated using something more appropriate. This really shouldn’t be the controversial. As you yourself claim words are subject to their context and culture. In our context and culture the word “good” cannot describe the God you have described.
One more thing, I am not appealing to some vacuous made up standard here and then saying you are redefining the terms. Rather I am appealing to the common moral experience of all of mankind in the same way that the moral argument for the existence of God does that I gave earlier does. I would like to know of one culture where a person would be considered good and loving for torturing another person for actions he caused him to do.
The points I was going to bring up in reply to Hodge have already been covered by Michael T. So I will save all of us the time of repeating it all again.
Just one more thought. Supposing people somehow are really free to choose to rebel in Calvinism–that they really do have a choic–even though in every form of Calvinism every thing is ultimately controlled by God so I simply don’t see how any true free choice can be made by a person. IF that is the case, it could be argued that God is just to send them to hell.
But how can it be argued that it is loving of Him to do so? It is loving of Him to choose to save some and to give them “irresitible grace” so they have to come to Him. But how is it showing love in any way to the rest to refuse to offer any of the same type of love to them when He obviously could?
Again, I can only see as an answer that God has to have someone to show His wrath too so that He will be glorified by what He does which seems to be the answer given by Calvinists here.
However, as Michael T says, that is certainly no way love is understood anywhere else and doesn’t seem to be a proper way of translating the word so that anyone in our culture today will understand it.
If an earthly father treated their children in this way, chose to grab one rebellious child and love that one and freely forgive them and pour out everything good on them, while deliberately choosing to punish terribly the rest of his rebellious children for the rest of the time they were in his household and withhold all forgiveness from them, that person would most certainly not be considered as a loving father.