Since high school, it has been my practice to read through the Scriptures each year. Upon readings in more recent years, I have been struck repeatedly by strong expressions of divine exasperation. Of course, I acknowledge God’s awareness of what free choices human beings will make, and I recognize that God can use free human choices and rebellion to accomplish his sovereign purposes. Humans can harden themselves (e.g., Mark 3:5) and then God, if he chooses, may add to this hardening (e.g., Mark 4:12); that is, human self-hardening gives way to “phase two” when God withdraws his grace and further removes humans from repentance, “giving them over” to the consequences of their own self-initiated resistance to God’s grace. Let me add here that Kenneth Keathley’s book Salvation and Sovereignty
I am hoping to do some writing in this area of divine exasperation, and I thought that I would check with faithful Parchment and Pen readers to get your take on the following verses. As I read them, they strongly suggest God’s legitimate expectation of spiritual fruitfulness, repentance, or obedience. That is, what hinders their repentance is not God’s withholding grace so that they cannot repent. Indeed, abundant grace has been given that justifies the expectation of repentance—even if God in his foreknowledge knows it is not forthcoming. Despite God’s initiating grace, humans continue to “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51)—to grieve him (Ephesians 4:30) and quench him (1 Thessalonians 5:19). God commands all people without exception to repent (Acts 17:30); so presumably God’s initiating grace is available for all to do so.
What is your take on the following sampling of verses that reflect “divine exasperation”?
- Genesis 4:6-7: “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’”
- Psalm 81:10-11: “Open your mouth wide, and I [God] will fill it.” Israel’s response? “But my people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me….Oh that my people would listen to Me…!” God goes on to say that if they did listen, he would subdue their enemies and feed Israel with the finest of wheat (vv. 13-16).
- Isaiah 5:1-7: “Let me sing now for my well-beloved a song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.” For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.”
- Jeremiah 5:3: “O Lord, do not Your eyes look for truth? You have smitten them, but they did not weaken; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.”
- Jeremiah 5:21-25: “‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see; who have ears but do not hear. Do you not fear Me?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, an eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and departed. They do not say in their heart, “Let us now fear the Lord our God, who gives rain in its season, both the autumn rain and the spring rain, who keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have withheld good from you.’”
- Ezekiel 6:9: “How I [God] have been hurt by their adulterous hearts.”
- Ezekiel 18:23, 32: “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” “Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies…. Therefore, repent and live.”
- Matthew 23:37: Jesus laments over Jerusalem: “How I longed to gather you . . . but you were unwilling.” (It appears that it wasn’t Jesus or his Father who was unwilling!)
- Luke 7:30: Israel’s religious leaders had “rejected God’s purpose for themselves.”
- John 3:16-17: “God so loved the world [which stands in opposition to God/Christ] . . . God did not sent His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
- Romans 10:21: “All day long I have stretched out my hand to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
- 2 Corinthians 5:20: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
- 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9: God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”; God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.” Surely the sense of the text cannot be turned around to mean that God is willing that certain people should perish and not come to repentance!
- 1 John 2:2: Christ died for the sins of “the whole world [holou tou kosmou]”—the same “whole world” that lies in the hands of the evil one (1 Jn. 5:19) and that Satan leads astray (Rev. 12:9).
- Revelation 2:21-22: Regarding the Thyatiran false prophetess “Jezebel,” Jesus says: “I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.”
What do you all think? If these are not genuine expressions of divine exasperation and genuine divine calls to freely repent in response to God’s grace, how are we to understand them? I’d appreciate your input.
270 replies to "Divine Exasperation"
I did forget to address Paul’s comment about the word “world.” This comment that views John’s use of world as all encompassing is rejected by every NT scholar I know. The reason why is that kosmos has multiple referents, not simply one. That’s why we don’t argue this way. It creates absurdities. For instance, if world has the same referent in John 3:16 as it does in 1 John 2:15, then we must say that God loves the world and all who love the world do not have the Father in them; therefore, God does not have the Father in Him. Obviously, kosmos has two different referents even in the same book, since Jesus dies for the world, but not the world as the enemy of God that is filled with the lust of the flesh (i.e., not as a spirit or pattern of evil thinking and practice), but for people. John’s use in 3:16 tells us in that very verse that Christ is talking about believers made up from both Jews and the Nations (i.e., the world). Hence, he states that “the believing ones” will not perish but have everlasting life. This is consistent with 1:10-13, where the world does not know Him, but whoever is not born of flesh and blood, or by the will of man, but by the will of God, believe.
“It is not telling me to make sure I pray for the governor of my State (because I like him) and not pray for the President of the U.S. (because I don’t like him), rather it is saying to pray for all people period.”
I think it is saying to pray for all classes of men, kings and those in authority, precisely because the early Christians would have seen these men as rejected by God, and not a part of the elect. Hence, he refutes this by stating that Christians are to pray for all kinds of men, not just ones in the lower strati.
Hodge,
1. There are not two wills in Arminianism because the desires are consistent with each other. I can desire that my kids use their free will to love me, and not (assuming we are 1000 years in the future here) altering their brain to force them to love me is consistent with this desire. There is no competing desires here. In the same way God desires that we use our free will to repent and do good. Notice that there is only one statement. In Calvinism on the other hand the two wills are diametrically opposed to one another. On one hand God desires all to repent and do good and on the other hand He is both actively and passively ensuring that this doesn’t happen.
2. “I think it’s a given that when the apostles address the churches to which they are writing they are speaking to the elect, not those they see as false brethren. ”
It would appear that the NET disagrees with you and it doesn’t seem at all evident to me.
3. “I think it is saying to pray for all classes of men, kings and those in authority, precisely because the early Christians would have seen these men as rejected by God, and not a part of the elect. Hence, he refutes this by stating that Christians are to pray for all kinds of men, not just ones in the lower strati.”
This is ultimately not responsive to my argument. Are you saying that we aren’t supposed to pray for “all people”, but rather simply ensure we pray for some people of every class (as in my example where I pray for one government official, but not another). I don’t think this passage make sense if that is the meeting. People would simply do what their instincts tell them – pray for those I like, and leave out those I don’t like – if a government official happens to be someone I like so be it.
4. As to your questions regarding 2 Peter 3 there are so many assumptions about what God does and does not directly control that I don’t know where to start.
Michael,
Let me say this more clearly:
God desires that only good exist in the universe (will call this desire Y).
God is all powerful and can prevent evil from existing.
God allows evil to exist because He desires X that is in conflict with desire Y.
I’m sorry, but you don’t escape it by simply saying that God desires us to have free will and love Him. God desires that no evil exist. Yet, He allows evil to exist in the Arminian system. They are in conflict. I’d take back the schizo comment, since it’s a slander to all deities involved.
“It would appear that the NET disagrees with you and it doesn’t seem at all evident to me.”
I think Strong’s may disagree with me too. And now so do you. Maybe also the ladies Bible club down the street. Maybe you can address why Peter and Paul say to their audiences that they are the elect of God if in fact they are not talking to the elect of God. This is getting pretty absurd, Michael.
“This is ultimately not responsive to my argument. Are you saying that we aren’t supposed to pray for “all people”, but rather simply ensure we pray for some people of every class (as in my example where I pray for one government official, but not another).”
No, I’m saying that this passage isn’t teaching that. It’s teaching that people need to pray for government officials (those who are viewed as in power and either in no need of prayer or the oppressors of the saved), not just the poor and powerless, as many of the early Christians may have assumed given their dispositions in Roman society in the 50s and 60s. You seem to be thinking that this is saying something about praying for one government leader versus another. It’s one social group versus another. Paul is saying not to discriminate based on social status, but to pray for all types of people.
But I do say that you have Paul contradict John if you make it without exception.
“As to your questions regarding 2 Peter 3 there are so many assumptions about what God does and does not directly control that I don’t know where to start.”
Let me suggest that you start by answering my question: “Does your interpretation make time a determining factor in someone repenting?” In other words, if someone is given more time, is it more likely that they will repent, and if so, why does God, who desires every single person to be saved, not give them more time, either in lengthening their lifespans or by not coming back indefinitely? And yes, I do assume that God has control over life and death. I believe I read that some where. 😉
Hodge,
Your insistence that John 3:16 only refers to the elect, the believers, certainly is not obvious in that verse as you seem to think it is.
For the bazillions of Christians like me that learned that verse when we were just small children and were told that it meant God loves everyone in the world, that has been the obvious meaning all of our lives. And obviously it was the obvious meaning to all of those that had gone on before us. None of them took the verse to mean, John’s use in 3:16 tells us in that very verse that Christ is talking about believers made up from both Jews and the Nations (i.e., the world), as you have stated.
It seems to me that an a priori belief in Calvinism is the only reason one would have to assume that verse to mean what you say that it does.
Hodge,
It also seems to me that something is being overlooked here in the I Timothy 2 discussion. The specific reason we are told to pray for kings and all in authority is so, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
It doesn’t seem to me that Paul is saying to pray for all people groups to be saved. It is only after he says to pray for all in authority so that we can live quietly, peacably and in all godliness and honesty that he goes on to say that he wants all men to be saved.
I think equating all people groups including those in authority to the all men he wants to be saved here may be a rather forced and arbitrary reading. After all, there is a very specific reason he listed the people group of those in authority specifially here. It doesn’t seem to me that it follows that the all men referred to elsewhere in this section means all people groups.
Cheryl,
Actually, it’s knowing Greek and understanding the context to which I alluded before that causes me to say this. Originally, the Geneva Bible (a Calvinist Bible btw) translated this way as an understanding of the context. What has been lost is the context, so we replace it with our a priori Arminian assumptions instead (btw, I concluded this about the passage before I became a Calvinist). This is not even to mention that if you take John 3:16 the way that you learned it as a VBS student, you end up having Christ contradict Himself, since here you say He indicates that everyone can come to Him without exception, and in John 6, He explicitly states that not everyone can come to Him.
v. 3 in 1 Tim 2, connects the two. The “this” is good and acceptable to God. To what does the “this” refer? It refers back to the entire command. This is supported by the neuter. So what he says is connected to God desiring all sorts of men to be saved, not just certain types (i.e., those who are oppressed or in low positions in society).
Hodge,
I am curious about something. From your last statement I gather that you didn’t grow up as a Calvinist but became one later after being an Arminian. Is that correct?
If so, how did you deal with your whole understanding of God’s character and your concept of Him being turned upside down and in some ways being practically 180 degrees different then what you had understood Him to be like in the past?
Frankly, God as understood by Calvinism is vastly different then God as understood by Arminianism. Frighteningly different even.
Hodge,
1. I think the question is does God really desire that no evil exist given the cost of ensuring this? Let me give an example. Right now I would love to buy a Lamborghini. However, the debt I would be in for the rest of my life and the other things I wouldn’t be able to buy if I did this prevent me from buying the Lamborghini. Now do I have two wills?? Or do I simply have desires that conflict and one is stronger then the other. My simple point with this is that in Arminianism God does not have two wills. He has two desires one of which is greater then the other. He desires that there be no evil, but has a greater desire that humans choose to follow Him with their own free will. In Calvinism on the other hand he desires all to repent on one hand and then works actively to ensure that doesn’t happen. Now I can think of ways to harmonize these, but none that don’t make God a monster (and therefore not God). Ultimately Calvinism has to posit some hidden will (or desires) of God which overrides His will revealed in Scripture.
2. Hodge my simply point with pointing out the NET here is that you come on to these forums with a air of superiority because you know this or that. In this case it would appear that world class scholars, not some grandmas tea party down the street, disagree with you on your interpretation (and the NET is no Arminian translation btw). They seem to think when Paul uses “elect” here is is making a generic greeting in the same way a pastor might use “brothers and sisters” in a sermon. Of course I will just bow to the mighty intellect of Hodge which knows more then all the worlds Bible scholars combined.
3. What verse in John are you saying this contradicts?
4. The question isn’t whether or not God sets the begginnings or endings of life, but rather, assuming the existence of LFW, does he give any deference to the wills of men in doing so. So if someone and their wife using LFW decide to have sex tonight at the right moment to ensure pregnancy will God in his foreknowledge give any deference to this decision in determining when life begins. Conversely if someone uses their LFW to go jump off a bridge tonight will God use his foreknowledge of that decision in setting the end point of that persons life.
As to your direct question I think time is a determining factor to an extant. One could certainly make this case if one is a premillenial dispensationalist and believes the world is headed to hell in a handbasket. God could be as far as we know intentionally delaying the second coming until the moment past which He knows no more people could have possibly come to Christ then already have. However this need not be neccessary, maybe he’s instead waiting for the time of maximal ratio – where the percentage of all humanity that will be saved will be the highest. Or possibly God recognizes that people as they grow older often become set in their ways and that no amount of signs or time would change them. I think if Jesus Christ appeared to Richard Dawkins right now Dawkins would either explain it as a hallucination or a really powerful space alien. Nothing could change his mind.
On the other hand I’m not sure how Calvinists avoid time being a factor either. God knows those who will repent and is waiting to come until everyone he knows will repent has repented. This isn’t that different from some of the options above.
5. Hodge, I’m sorry on the 1 Tim. 2 I can’t find anything to indicate that this should be thought of as meaning anything other than “all people” in the first use and I can furthermore find no reason that it should be thought of any differently in the second use. Paul is telling us to pray for all people inclusive of the leaders (who as you rightly point out the people might be tempted to leave out). Even the title of the passage in most Bibles is “prayer for all people”. If your interpretation was better all these translations could have put “prayer for all people groups” and avoided the misunderstanding, but I can’t find even a note supporting this understanding. To even try to get your perspective on this I went and read James White’s exegesis on this passage here http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3018. It was filled with more non-sequitar’s then I could count. It is quite apparent that the only compelling reason to accept “all people groups” as the interpretation is that one already accepts Calvinism.
6. On John 6 Arminians have no problem understanding these verses in light of prevenient grace. We all agree that without God drawing us we would be unable to find Him of our own accord.
‘Just a quick comment to insert into the conversation (which is about all I have time for!): Wm. and Hodge, thanks for your thoughtful comments and engagement point for point! Michael T., wow, you’re doing all the heavy lifting for me! I appreciate it. As I wrote, I’m working on various pressing matters such as meeting writing deadlines and preparing for my upcoming week of intensive teaching on biblical ethics out in California.
I’ll try to catch up after 1 November—just as I begin preparations in earnest for four presentations at meetings in Atlanta mid-month!
Blessings to you all!
Hodge,
Did you not state sometime back that you believe in double predestination? Please correct me if I am remembering wrong. It makes a difference in the point I am trying to make here.
If you believe in double predestination and the fact that most people are not going to be in heaven (as understood from such contexts as Jesus discussion on the narrow way that leads to life and the broad way that leads to destruction and the fact that few find the narrow way), you have a scenario something like this. God speaking: “I am going to create George, Jim, Barb, and Carol and they are going to go to hell. I am going to create Joe and he is going to go to heaven. I am going to create Joe, Jack, Marie and Marilyn and they are going to hell. I am going to create Barabara and she is going to heaven.”
Now in all of my growing up years which had a lot of missionary emphasis in them, I was always told that the pagan “gods” that people worshipped, the gods of their idols were capricious and fearful “deities” that people lived their lives in fear of. Fear of what they would do and were always trying to appease those gods.
On the other hand, we were taught, the God of the Bible was nothing like that. He was a God that truly loved all of those He had created and had their best interests at heart. In fact He loved them so much that He sent Jesus to die so all of them could have eternal life if they would just come to Him.
I’m sorry, but to me God as Calvinists understand Him appears to have a lot in common with those fearful deities of the pagans as far as the largest majoritiy of people in His creation goes. (Except that people don’t even have the option of appeasing Him.)
Is it any wonder why we have a hard time wrapping our minds and hearts around the Calvinistic understanding of things?? To say nothing of the fact that we just don’t see the same things in much of Scripture that you do.
That was my question, but going to verses outside of the context doesn’t answer it. Now, I concede that the verse can be taken your way, since the contextual argument I gave isn’t a strong one; but (since you don’t argue against it) it can be taken my way as well.
In order to read the text this way you introduce universal salvation rather than universal atonement. The problem is that when Paul says “God, Who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers” he’s referring to the savior, not an owner, creator, or even a redeemer. In order for this NOT to imply universal salvation we have to have a lesser salvation for unbelievers than believers, and I believe that’s implied by the surrounding text.
Looking at the surrounding text, we see that:
1) The false teachers despise the physical parts of God’s creation (1 Tim 4:1-3).
2) Paul says that all parts of creation are sanctified by “God’s word and prayer” (1 Tim 4:5).
3) Paul recites a creed that affirms the usefulness of physical exercise (1 Tim 4:8).
4) Paul echos that creed to say that “we work and struggle” (1 Tim 4:10).
5) Finally, Paul says that the “Living God” is the Savior of all people (1 Tim 4:10).
I think, in context, that Paul is saying that God saves all people by sanctifying them by “His word and prayer”, and by actively making His creation available to be received “with thanksgiving”. The former benefit is available to all humans (since the Church performs that), but the latter benefit is NOT available to unbelievers (who “did not glorify him as God or give him thanks”).
-Wm
William,
I Timothy 3:3-5 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
What is being sanctified here by the word of God and prayer?? What is to be received with gratitude? The foods that God has created, it seems to me.
I don’t think this section has anything at all to do with God being the Savior of all men in the way you spoke of above. I think that is taking this verse way out of context and doing some fancy eisegesis here.
I think speaking of Him as the Savior of all men means just that, that the atonement He accomplished on the cross has the power to save all men. But it is especially so for those that believe as that salvation has been appropriated to them.
Cheryl, the difference between the informed Arminian and the informed Calvinist views of God are almost nil; we’re derived from the same traditional roots in the Reformation. For this reason, I think you’d be perfectly comfortable with my view of God’s character if you could bring yourself to examine it without prejudging it. But both sides, unless VERY well studied indeed, commonly mistake the views of the other side to be much worse than they actually are.
I’ve very often (and relatively recently) been corrected by informed Arminians about misconceptions I’d adopted regarding their views. In almost every case, I wound up realizing “these people aren’t that bad after all.” Then I hear some informed Calvinist speak about something else Arminians believe, and there I go, needing to be corrected yet again.
-Wm
He’s saying that the salvation promised by it only applies to the believers, which is what it explicitly says: “whoever believes in Him will have everlasting life.”
And yet that’s not what the verse says.
Think about what it COULD have said: “This is the way God loved the world: he gave everlasting life to the whole thing.” OR… “This is the way God loved the world: He granted potential salvation to everyone. All they have to do is believe and it’s theirs!” OR… “God loved everyone in the world so much, He gave His Son so that each of them would have a chance to believe on Him.”
Instead, John said “This is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes on Him will not perish, but have eternal life.”
John didn’t describe God loving the world an amazing amount; He described God loving the world in a specific, concrete way. That way was to give His unique Son.
John then goes on to narrow things down. The ones who don’t accept Christ are condemned already; not because they didn’t accept Christ, but because they “loved darkness” even before they saw Christ.
-Wm
Wm,
At this point in time I don’t know if I am following either you or Hodge here!
I have never argued regarding John 3:16 that the second part of the verse didn’t refer exclusively to believers. That would be ridiculous, as it is very obvious that it does.
The difference in opinion between Hodge and I, (if I even understood what he was saying correctly–this conversation gets so odd at times that I start to wonder if “your” side is understanding “our” side at all or vice versa!) is what is meant by the word “world” here. He seems to be saying that the verse means “God loves the beliver’s/elect so much that He gave His Son.” Instead of the way we understand it that God loves–as I believe you put it above–everyone in it so much that He gave His Son.
Now obviously you don’t see how we can think that is what it means. But very frankly, I don’t know why anyone that doesn’t already have a Calvinist understanding would think that “world” here meant only the believing part of the world.
I know Hodge said he came to that conclusion before he became a Calvinist because of the Greek. Why I don’t know. It seems that the Greek kosmos can mean either one.
And by the way, I don’t think the context of John 3:16–19 where “world” is used 5 times in all, bears out the interpretation that the word world here means just the believers either.
I don’t remember if this has been mentioned in this discussion or not. I know I saw it referred to in a similar discussion somewhere recently.
I find it interesting that in John 3:14–15 right before the famous verse we have been discussing, this statement is made: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Was it not the case that the serpent that is spoken of here and used as a comparison of Jesus being lifted up was indeed lifted up for the whole congregation of Israel? There were no “elect” ones only in that group that would be healed by looking at the serpent. Every last one of them were included in that promise and that provision.
This verse says that EVERYTHING that God has created is sanctified by the Word and prayer, and NOTHING is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving. He applies this against the teachings involving marriage and food, but he doesn’t specify them here (some translations do, for some reason, but it’s not in the Greek). The teaching against foods could in theory be Galatianism, but because of the association with marriage this must actually be a protognostic belief; and the root of this teaching is that God is too holy to bother with the world, and any god who DOES interact with the world is at least partly evil.
I explained in detail from the text. Your accusations need to be justified, not simply made.
But you’re not saying “just that”. If you were, you’d be a universalist. You’re adding something to avoid that, and unlike myself you’re not explaining from context why the author said what he did without meaning to be universalist.
I don’t believe Christ’s power is limited. But I believe that His death was intended to save definite individuals whom the Father calls; and everyone the Father calls comes to the Son, to be sanctified by the Spirit into the image of the Son. There are also definite individuals whom Jesus looked at while speaking the words of John 6-7 and explained that those people were not called and therefore could not come.
-Wm
No. Only the ones who looked at it lived. Many died before it was lifted up.
A correct analogy, but your conclusion is unsupported by any text I was able to find.
-Wm
There’s one definite error in your reading: the phrase “so much”. John isn’t saying that God is demonstrating the amount of His love, but rather is showing His love in a way of acting. God’s way of loving is to send His unique Son. The thing towards which He’s enacting love is the world. Does that mean each individual in the world? Maybe, but John goes on to say that only some individuals are actually saved; the rest are not helped by this love (although they are not hurt).
-Wm
Wm,
It says “foods which God has created.” I don’t see that statement as including marraige.
But if you insist on this interpretation, which I just simply do not see as fitting the context at all–thus my statements about it being out of context and eisegesis which I thought I explained above–how in the world do you see everything and every person in creation as being sanctified or “made holy” as the ESV says, by the word of God and prayer?
The rapist, the serial killer, the abortionist, the wife beater, etc, etc, etc. are made holy because someone prays for them? That beggars belief with me. That will take some expaining for me to even begin to see how that works! 🙂
Wm,
Regarding John 3:16 again. Scratch the words, “so much,” from what I said. That doesn’t change any of the rest of what I said or what I understand the verse to mean when it speaks of the “world”.
And about the analogy of the serpent and Jesus both being lifted up. I didn’t make myself completely clear there I guess. Obviously many died before the serpent was “lifted up.” But my point was that any and all that looked at the serpent were healed. There was no special class of Israelites that could look and be healed and another class that could not look and were not healed. Now is that a part of the analogy carried through to Jesus and what John is saying about Him in these verses? I don’t know that there is any way to prove it. However, it certainly seems possible. It is just another little tidbit that I think might add even more more reason to believe that “world” in these verses actually means everyone in the world.
Seriously, read the sentence — it’s right before that phrase. And the rest of the paragraph strengthens the point by talking about God creating everything, and about how we should reject nothing.
You didn’t explain; you merely said “I don’t think that’s in the text.” Well, that’s good, but what do you mean? I posted a detailed look at the text, and all you have to say is that you don’t think so.
Because that’s what the verse says.
Two answers.
For the Christian experiencing those, the Bible has an amazing amount on the topic of suffering. The only thing I can assure you is that God will bring good from it, and you will rejoice. Your experience will become holy, if you receive it with thanksgiving.
For the person guilty of that: such sin cannot enter the Kingdom of God. And such were you; but “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
For the person not guilty of that: read the Sermon on the Mount. You ARE guilty of those things. Repent and accept the free gift of forgiveness.
-Wm
William,
For what it is worth, I read three different commentaries last night on that text. Every one of them agree with me that what is being sanctified in that verse is the foods spoken of, not the marriage spoken of previously. Marriage was mentioned as being good here and to be received, but it was the foods–the creatures God gives–specifically that were spoken of as being sanctified by the word and prayer.
And not a single one of them took your stance that it is all people here that are being sanctified or made holy by our prayers. I still think that it is understanding the text in a completely incorrect way.
All three of them also agreed, with some variations, to my understanding of what the “Savior of all men, but specifically of those that believe,” means. One or two of them also included some type of temporal saving—provision, protection or such— for all men but very specifically said that it included the potential or some other word for final salvation for all although all would not receive it.
And one of these is even the old Puritan, quite Calvinist, Matthew Henry! here is his commentary.
I didn’t give the links to the other two commentaries. The first is David Guzik’s and it is found here.
The second one is the old Jamieson, Fausset & Brown and is found here.
William,
Just one more quick comment here! I found this very interesting this a.m. Look at what the Net Bible translators did with those first few verses of I Timothy 4:
4:1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves 1 with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, 2 4:2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars 3 whose consciences are seared. 4 4:3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4:4 For every creation of God is good and no food 5 is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. 4:5 For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=1Ti&chapter=4#n8
“no food is to be rejected if is is received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by Gods’ word and by prayer.”
You may still think my understanding of this is incorrect, but at least it seems that I have a lot of support!
And I keep thinking about your charge of universalism. It is not universalism if you believe Jesus indeed died for all so that He is “the Savior of all men.” (Doctrine of unlimited atonement). It only becomes universalism if you believe that because of that everyone will be automatically saved. Because He died for all and in that sense is the Savior of all, does not mean that all will receive that salvation and hence be eternally saved.
I got busy and lost track of some of the questions toward me, but wanted to address these two things:
1. Cheryl, yes, I was not only an Arminian, but I was an apologist and an Arminian. In other words, I not only knew what Arminianism was, I defended it all the time. What shook me loose from it was learning linguistics in regard to how I did my lexicography and the appropriate application of context. I slowly realized that I could no longer explain away what was clear from the logic of the text.
2. “Savior of all men” is likely a polemic against Caesar, who was called this. However, it seems clear that Paul turns it to mean “Savior of all sorts of men.” Otherwise, you do get universalism, since it does not say, “the potential Savior of all men,” but “the Savior of all men,” meaning that He actually saves them. It cannot mean “potential Savior anyway, since it says that this is what He is for believers. He is not the potential Savior for believers, but the actual Savior. Furthermore, malista does not mean “especially,” as many scholars have assumed, but is a type of specification that further clarifies the preceding group. It is like me saying, “The government is taxing me, malista the IRS. By that, I mean to say that the government, specifically the IRS, not all of the government, is taxing me. If this is true, then the “all men” is only believers, and therefore, must be seen not as all men in the world, but all sorts of men out of the world that make up the elect.
Hodge,
The NIV, ESV, the NASB, the Net Bible, and an online interlinear I use all translate that word “especially”. Are you tellling me that every single one of them have it wrong? Even the quite new and highly acclaimed ESV and the Net Bible? (Maybe you had better take that up with Dan Wallace.)
Besides that, people have referred to Him as “the Savior of all men” throughout all of my life knowing full well that doesn’t mean everyone will actually be saved in the end. They would be absolutely horrified to have you refer to them as a universalist because of that fact. Obviously, such folks as even old Matthew Henry who in many ways was a Calvinist agreed with those folks. That argument is not going to sway me all of that easily.
Cheryl,
The only way that tradition gets away with that is to ignore the language used. Even if we take malista in the traditional English misunderstanding of it as some sort of superlative specification, the text would basically say that Christ was only the potential Savior of believers. Notice, the text does not say potential Savior. You, and your tradition, may put the spin on it, but the text does not allow you to do that. That’s sort of like reading a stop sign to mean “slow down.” Most people may take it that way, but that’s not what it means.
Hodge,
What about all of those translations that don’t agree with what you said above?
And if it is only “tradition” that has caused that verse to be understood that way, it is certainly a very long standing tradition! At least a tradition that is hundreds of years old. Even Matthew Henry, a Calvinst no less, of the 17th and 18th centuries, believed that tradition.
And I have to wonder, do you read every other verse in the Bible with such an absolute literalism as you are insisting this verse be read? And if not, why do you insist that this one be read in the most literal sense possible?
Cheryl,
I read every other Bible verse with an insistence that I interpret it according to the words used and the referents to which they point. Person X is the Savior of Person Y is not saying that Person X potentially could save Person Y. It means that Person X did save Person Y. Or, the phrase, “you’re my savior,” is the same as saying “you’ve saved me,” not “you provided salvation for me in a theoretical and potential sense, but not actually.”
For malista, you can see T. C. Skeat, “Especially the Parchments: A Note on 2 Timothy IV.13,” Journal of Theological Studies NS, Vol. 30 (1979): 173-177
I. Howard Marshall also takes this view in his ICC commentary on the Pastorals.
I came to this determination separately. It seems clear from the NT uses of the term.
I came to this determination separately. It seems clear from the NT uses of the term
Well, obviously it wasn’t clear to the translators of all of those Bible translations that I listed. So I can’t say that I am convinced.
And neither am I convinced that you are l00% right when you make your assertions about what “the Savior of all men” means. You might be right, on the other hand, there have been a large number of folks that have gone before you and that are still living today who understand it to mean something totally different then what you do. And I don’t think they necessarily understand the meaning of the English language or the way language is used in a way that is inferior to you! 🙂 You are insisting that this phrase has to be understood very literally. Those of us that think differently believe it is being used more figuratively. I’m not sure that is the exact word I am looking for here, but I hope it gets my point across.
By the way, William your fellow Calvinist in this discussion, believes this verse means something totally different then what you believe here.
Hodge,
As I’m sure you are aware the standard Arminian belief is that Christ died for all people and is in fact the Savior of all people. This is the meaning of universal atonement. However, Arminianism holds that those do not accept Christ’s offer of salvation and instead choose to reject it are cut off from the atonement being effectual. Thus while Christ died for all he does not irresistibly force people to accept his offer of grace as he does in the Calvinist system. This is different then saying that Christ is only a potential savior of all. He is the Savior of all but his salvation is only effectual for those accept it.
Michael T,
Thank you. What you just said is exactly what I have been trying to say for a long time now. Maybe using the word “potential” confused the issue, I don’t know. I was hoping it would clarify things, but obviously it did not.
Michael,
Thanks. I’m aware of the Arminian position, but it is in fact a potential salvation, not an actual one. Christ provides what could save an individual. He does not actual save them until they believe. Hence, they are not saved by Him if they do not believe. Hence, He is not their Savior until they believe. I understand that the traditional Arminian interpretation of this verse is to pretend that it says that “Christ was the propitiation for all men,” or “Christ died for all men,” but that’s not what it says. It says that Christ was the Savior (i.e., actually, not potentially, saved) group X.
Cheryl,
I say we throw out language altogether and just say that it means Christ was a nice guy to all men. I can then go on to re-interpret every other passage that doesn’t fit my tradition. To me, the compatiblist understanding makes sense of all texts and lets them speak for themselves; but the Arminian understanding has to simply believe that certain texts that seem rather explicit in their grammar and logic MUST mean something else, even though we don’t have a consistent exegesis in determining what that other interpretation might be. “Savior” here must mean something else (i.e., that Christ merely provided the means to be saved, but didn’t actually save anyone until they believe). For me, I can just take it to mean that He saved these people, and as such, rightly is called Savior in contrast to Caesar who didn’t.
Hodge,
To me all of the verses that say things like “He died for all, He is the Savior of the world, He loved the world”, etc become very strained if you have to read into them that it reallly means he died for some, he loved some, He is the Savior of some, etc. And there are a lot of those verses out there.
That is particulary true in the context of John 3:16 where “world” would have to be interpreted several different ways in the context of just a few verses for the Calvinist understanding to hold up.
For me, having to reinterpret a whole bunch of different verses in this manner is way too strained to be comfortable with at all.
“For God so loved the elect, He sent His son into the elect/all classes of people, not to condemn the elect/some of all classes of people, but that the elect/some of all classes of people might be saved, and light (which is Jesus according to chapter one) came into the whole world but men hated that light.” And how do you know for sure after all of those mental gymnastics that you have John’s true meaning down here? Sure it fits Calvinisms beliefs, as I understand them anyway, but beyond that, how do you know that is correct? It seems to me you have to utterly comlicate Scripture in order for it to work in the Calvinist understanding.
I’m sorry, but that is awkward beyond belief– to have to do all of that interpreting/reinterpreting of a passage to have a clue as to what the author meant. Seems to me that if John really meant all of that, he surely could of found an easier and plainer way to say it!! This kind of interpretation requires mental gymnastics way beyond anything you claim the Arminians are guilty of.
Hodge,
I am wondering what you do with this verse: and He Himself is the *propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. I John 2:2
This time the word world isn’t used alone, but John makes sure we know He is the propiation for the sins of the whole world.
If you don’t already assume a Calvinist belief system, there is no reason at all to think that this verse means anything other then literally the whole world. You certainly can not accuse us of reading something into the verse that is not there! So why do you think we are totally wrong to believe in the other Scripture that all men means all literally all men?
Cheryl,
This verse is intended to reassure the believers to whom John is speaking that in spite of the awfulness of our sins, Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to complete His task of advocacy for us. (Do you agree?)
The primary topic of the passage is our purification from sins through walking in the light (as believers); secondary is the reality of our sin; next is avoiding sin; next is Christ’s advocacy; next is Christ’s atonement in support of His advocacy; and last, is the idea that His atonement is for not only us but the whole world (I’m almost quoting, since I don’t want to risk interpreting the phrase until I establish the context). Agreed so far?
So whatever this concept means (and I’ll look at that) it’s a supporting concept, not a primary doctrine. When a primary doctrine is taught, it’s repeated many times and explored in many inversions (as Jesus did in John 7); a supporting concept may be glossed over, because a misunderstanding won’t undercut the main doctrine being taught. This means that we may not know with certainty what John meant here; but we know that whatever he meant, it supports the points he was trying to make.
(Argh, out of room!)
-Wm
Good grief William, that is the “bestest” cop-out I have heard in a long time. So go right ahead and gloss over it and say we can’t know with certainty what he meant there. 🙂
He made a strong point of saying that He is the propitiation of “the whole world”, (not just theirs), so it doesn’t sound to me like it is something he meant for us to just “gloss over”!
Seriously now, I’ll be waiting to hear what you think the concept means.
…and that point is about the sins of believers who are walking in the light. It can’t even be taken to mean that believers who aren’t walking in the light are covered by Christ’s sacrifice (although they are, of course, if they’re actually believers; we know that from other passages), much less can it be taken to mean that unbelievers are covered by Christ’s sacrifice. It may likely mean that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for the world. If it does actually mean that Jesus’ sacrifice does actually purify/avert wrath against the sins of the whole world, we can’t build a doctrine on conclusions from that, as one would have to do if one were to say “because everyone’s sins are propitiated, therefore all of them are morally able to please God by their own good works.” (Hypothetically.)
As one more example of the dangers of making conclusions based on secondary points, consider that John didn’t say “the sins of the whole world”; he actually said “the whole world”. It’s not a stretch to imagine that he meant us to read “the sins” into that, since the passage is about sins; but neither is it a certainty. But neither one is certain. If we read in “the sins”, John is letting us know that the scope of Christ’s sacrifice is huge, including the most horrible sins; if we don’t, we know that the power of Christ’s sacrifice is huge.
So COULD it mean that Christ died for all people in the world? It could. Does it? No, because John doesn’t contradict himself in his Scriptural writings. In John 17:9 he distinguishes between those who are Christ’s and the world as a whole — so Christ does not intercede for those who are not given to Him. In John 10 Christ explains that He dies for His sheep, and His sheep hear His voice, while the ones who are not His sheep do not hear His voice.
-Wm
Does this mean that God doesn’t love the world? Well, John 3:16 said He DOES. But John doesn’t say He loves every person in the world, but rather the world (the whole thing). And the way He loves it is to save SOME of the people in it, not all of them. The following verses distinguish between the ones He saves and the ones He doesn’t save.
-Wm
Cheryl, I need to be clear on this. I’m not happy with your attitude here. I put a lot of effort into my replies, and you falsely accuse me of “glossing over” things. Glossing over is when you fail to put effort into things. I may be in error, but I’m not being carelessly negligent.
If you disagree with me, good. Tell me where you disagree, don’t just ignore my entire message and merely contradict my conclusions. We already know we disagree on the conclusions.
And your claim that John “made a strong point of saying” is demonstrably false (and I’ve already demonstrated it). John said it once, and far from being a “strong point”, it’s a subsidiary point in support of a subsidiary point. Compare this to John’s communication of Jesus’ clarity in John 6 verses 37, 44, 45, and 65 — he quoted Jesus speaking in multiple different ways on the same topic.
-Wm
Here is I John 2:2 again, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. ESV
You say that it doesn’t say He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, only that it says the whole world. But look again, William. He is the propiation for our sins, and not only ours but…
The second word sins may not be in the manuscript before translation, but it is certainly in the verse: for our sins and not only ours, but..
And I don’t think that it proves that Jesus never prays for people in the world just because He isn’t in that particular passage. That may be the case. But I think to assume so is just that–assumption. These were very specific prayers He was praying for His followers right before His death–that they would be one and would be protected, etc. And remember too, He did pray for those that would believe because of the witness of those that knew Him at that time. Does the fact that He was praying for specific things for His followers here mean that He didn’t die for the rest of the world too and was willing for them to come to Him? I don’t see how that conclusion could be drawn at all.
And of course He lays down His life for the sheep as it says in John 10. We all know that and no one will argue the point. But does that mean that He didn’t lay it down for the rest of the world too like I John 2:2 seems to be saying? And I don’t think that verse in any way implies universalism. His being the sacrifice for all men does not mean that all men will receive that sacrifice. That isn’t the case in my theology. That only happens in the world of limited atonement and irresistable grace! 🙂
William,
To clarify the things you brought up in your last comment: The only thing I said you were glossing over was what you yourself talked about glossing over in that verse. And I did say it with a :), remember? You have put a lot of time into your replies in general. But you were the one that that said this was a point that could be glossed over without being sure about what it said. If I was offensive, I apologize. But it did seem like you may have been trying to get out of really answering the question. You did say you would look at what it meant and that is why I said I was waiting for your answer.
And when I said John made a stong point, I was referring specifically to that verse and no others. (Although I could argue that the same point is made in other places in the Bible in different ways.) And I did think and still do, that it was a strong point in that verse.
That’s not Hodge’s argument, nor implied by it. Having us select individuals to pray for would be like having us select which individuals we wanted God to save. That’s not what’s being said here. Hodge’s argument is that God chooses individuals, not that we should choose them.
-Wm
That’s not true — none of them say that marriage is NOT the topic; and one of them, A.R. Fausset, uses the phrase food or “the creature”, thus making it clear that he’s not forgotten what Paul is writing about.
No, marriage is not explicitly mentioned as being good; marriage is explicitly mentioned as being prohibited by the doctrines of the evil men. Neither food nor marriage is explicitly covered as being good; instead, “every creation of God” is covered as being good. That includes marriage and food.
I have to put the three commentaries in the next message.
-Wm
Your understanding is that God is the savior of all men because he makes all men equally savable. (I contend that this doesn’t fit with the context, and of course you know I also think the
Bible directly contradicts it, although not in this verse.)
Guzik says it means that there’s not some other Savior for some other men. (This doesn’t mean Christ is a potential savior; it means there’s no other actual or potential savior.) This contradicts your understanding.
Fausset says the same thing, but he alone adds that Christ is the savior potentially (as your argument does). But unlike your argument, by this he means that Christ could save them because they’re sinners (according to the verse he cites), not that Christ could save them if they took some action (as your argument claims).
Henry doesn’t even do any of that; He merely assigns God a general concern for man’s salvation (which is NOT an adequate treatment of the verse; a general concern is neither salvation nor potential salvation).
So none of them agree with your position; while two of them, by talking about temporal salvation, are at least talking about the same general thing that I am, although I admit that they’re not reading the text in the same way.
-Wm