In the comments section of Fisher’s post John Calvin on Fatalism, the conversation seemed to have found its way to 1 Tim 2:4. And since this verse seems to generate a lot of debate these days, at least from my perspective, I thought it would be a good idea to explore 1 Tim 2:4 a little bit more thoroughly.

1 Tim 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”

The key part is “who will have all men to be saved” (KJV). Other versions state it as “who desires all men to be saved” (NASB) and “who wants all men to be saved” (NIV) but it essentially means the same thing.

The first thing we need to do is look at the context of this verse. According to John MacArthur (from whom I’m getting this explanation), this verse falls in the middle of a section of scripture addressing Evangelistic Prayer (verses 1 through 8). So given the context of this section, we should remember that Paul is addressing how we, as believers, should be praying for the lost to be saved as this lines up with Gods desire. It is Gods desire that all be saved so therefore it should also be our desire that all be saved.

The full explanation can be found here, but I just want to look at the words will, desire and want as used in verse 4 of the various english translations. In each case we find it has been translated from the Greek word “thelo” into will, desire, or want. Now, working back to the Greek from will (KJV). There are two basic Greek words for will and they are “thelo” and “boulomai”. So what does each of these words mean? “Thelo” reflects the will of desire springing from feeling and inclination while “boulomai” speaks of a will that comes from precise determination.

So the will/desire/want used in 1 Tim 2:4 is not the will/desire/want in the “boulomai” sense; that God has precisely determined the salvation of all men. It is not a sovereignly ordained fact that everyone is going to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is not talking about that kind of will but that of “thelo” which is the word used in the original Greek text.

It’s not simply a “What God wants he gets” in some sort of universalistic salvation or that we have some sort of impotent God who is unable to fulfil His will. There’s a distinction between God’s sovereign will and His moral will.

To put it another way, we would all agree without equivocation that God does not desire people to sin. Could we agree with that? We do not believe that God desires people to do evil, to sin, to be disobedient, to be unholy, to fail to give Him glory. No, we would all agree with that. In fact the spectrum of evangelical theology would agree to that. We know God desires men not to sin. We do not for a moment advocate anything different than that. So turn the table a bit. Would we would all agree then that God desires all men to be holy? No one would argue against that, right? God desires all men to be righteous. God desires all men to be sinless. God desires all men to give Him glory and give Him honour and give Him respect. God desires all men to be obedient. I mean, He commands men over and over and over and over to be obedient. He calls for righteousness. He calls for holiness. He calls for sinlessness. He calls for everyone on the face of the earth to give Him honour and give Him glory. He calls for all men everywhere to repent. Nobody debates that. We all know God wants men to be holy.

Therefore, we conclude that people sin though God does not want them to. That’s obvious. People are unholy though God does not want them that way. People do not give God glory though God does not want them not to give Him glory. Then why is it such a hard thing for some people to realise that people also go to hell though God does not want them to? God wants all men to be saved. That is the desire of God.

Men sin and they go to hell, not because it is God’s express sovereign purpose for them. They go to hell because they denied God’s moral will for their life. He calls them to repent. He calls them to be saved. If anyone goes to hell, they go there not because of the predetermined choice of God, but because of the rejection of Jesus Christ. That’s what He’s saying. He wants all men saved.

In the exact words of John MacArthur;

I believe in the sovereignty of God, I believe in election, I believe in predestination, beloved, I also believe that God wills men to be saved and by their choice they are not saved and that is their responsibility not God’s. And if you ask me how those two things harmonize, I say I’ll tell you our first day in heaven, I’ll explain the whole thing. But I know this, God has a broken heart because He desires salvation from the ends of the earth, why else would Jesus weep over Jerusalem. “O how often I would, I willed to gather you together but you would not.” He said that. You wouldn’t do it. Why will you die? Why will you reject?

So in tying this with the challenge in the comments of Fishers post, I believe the will of God espoused by John Calvin, Ryft and Fisher with regard to the issue of choice, election and predestination is the will of “boulomai.” It is not the will of “thelo” that we find in 1 Tim 2:4.

a star

and under it,
would the men who rode to bethlehem
have caught joseph
playing at peekaboo
with the child at mary’s breast?

perhaps

perhaps they knelt–
like we see them in shop windows–
and gave their gifts
of gold and myrrh and frankincense,
their wandering
having led to wonder,
to the baby at rest
in the manger

and if i had stole away
in a pack on the mule’s back
of the men who rode to bethlehem,
and if i had seen what they saw,
or if i had known what they knew,
or had brought what they had brought
for Him,
i’d go up to Him too, i reckon
but having stole away,
what would i give Him,
the drummer-boy that i am?
i could give Him my thanks,
yes,
i’d thank Him
if i were with those men
who rode to bethlehem,
i’d thank Him,
‘cause now we no longer have the need
to go chasing after stars

Download and listen to an mp3 of the poem being read

This is the continuation of my survey of Issue #4 of SALVO Magazine, as it relates to creationism. If you missed part one it might be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the first post before continuing, as I will dispel with the background already covered in part one and get straight back into it.

There is a small section refuting three main accusations against the Intelligent Design movement called What ID is NOT (p.36). Under the sub-heading of ID is Creationism is the following response:

“You’ve no doubt heard this one numerous times. In reality, this is flat-out false. The average creationist believes in a young earth, biblical literalism, and the complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes. The ID proponent, on the other hand, rejects – or at the very least suspends speculation on – all three of these convictions, maintaining only that there are reasons to conclude that life was designed; how it was designed or by whom lie beyond the ID theorist’s field of inquiry.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

In reality, it is this characterization that is flat-out false! While it is important to distinguish between creationism and ID, the more I read this issue the more I began to wonder if they had gone out of their usual way to build a subtle case against the reasonableness of creationism. In fact throughout the entire 96 pages, I have struggled to find a single positive comment about it and just about every attempt to define it is false on some level. The only thing missing from this caricature on page 36 is that the average creationist is a flat-earther! That certainly would’ve helped to drive the wedge deeper between the two positions… but of course, that would be misleading. Three main points to make here:

1. It’s true, ID is not Creationism and the average creationist may indeed believe in a young earth. But;
2. As pointed out earlier (see part one) creationists are not biblical literalists. To suggest otherwise is sloppy, and grossly misrepresents the position that YECs actually hold.
3. To say that YECs believe in a “…complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes”, really depends on how you define an evolutionary process. For example, mutations and natural selection are part of the supposed evolutionary process and yet creationists accept both of them.^[1] Why wouldn’t they? These are observable phenomena, otherwise known as real science! Instead they reject the notion that these processes are evidence for the evolutionary worldview depicted in the typical monophyletic Darwinian tree. Creationists hold this view for two main reasons: 1) they believe the Bible – which is held in the highest authority – provides enough information about the origin of life on earth to make a distinction between it and an evolutionary world view; 2) they are far from convinced that mutations and natural selection constitute the observable modus operandi of evolution – a function that would need to alter an organism so that it gains the new genetic information required for new body parts or plans.

So if creationists are not biblical literalists and do not deny observable “evolutionary” processes such as mutations and natural selection then the characterization of the view presented on page 36 is seriously misleading. In fact other than the age of the earth and the universe, the only key distinction between ID and Creationism mentioned on p.36 would appear to be how and by whom life was designed.

Read the rest of this entry

I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.^[1] 

Read the rest of this entry

I was inspired to post this following the conversation about grace on an earlier post.

I heard the song East to West by Casting Crowns for the first time on a myspace site a few years ago and became addicted to it almost instantly. The lyrics will really hit home for those of you who know what it means to struggle with sin everyday. But it also touches very personally on many truths at the heart of Christianity and paints a vivid picture of Christ crucified for the purpose of separating us from sin as “far as the east is from the west”.

For example, you may recognise the reference in the song to this passage from Scripture:

‘as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.’

Psalm 103:12

The significance of the comparison of East with West being that the two are mutually exclusive; necessarily separate; the one can never unite with the other.

I think the writers of this song (Mark Hall and Bernie Herms) demonstrate – not just through this song, but many others they write – a proper attitude to sin and to Christ, as well as the ability to capture, through the lyrics, imagery and music, the anxiety that Christians face every day about their sin. Don’t be afraid to allow this song to stir the emotions. You may just find that it brings you to tears as it does me.

‘East to West’ – Casting Crowns
(Album: Altar & the Door)

Here I am, Lord, and I’m drowning
in your sea of forgetfulness
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don’t want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight

I know You’ve cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as, as though I’ve never sinned
But today I feel like I’m just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

From an old Table Talk article posted by Douglas Wilson, titled ‘Sanctified Apathy’

When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were commanded to bow down to the Babylonian idol, they refused. They knew that God was able to deliver them, and they said as much to the king. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17-18). They said that their God could deliver them. But even if He decided not to, as far as they were concerned, the king could throw them into the furnace. They didn’t care. Of course they didn’t care about the furnace because they did care, and deeply, about honoring God. And this is the basis for sanctified apathy.

The more we care about honoring God, the less we will care about receiving honors from men. This is important because if we care about the opinions of men in the wrong way, it keeps us from being able to believe in Jesus (John 5:44).The more we care about being approved as a faithful workman by God, the less we will care if others condemn or oppose us on their own puny authority (2 Tim. 2:15).

Modern Christians are constantly exhorted to care. This is legitimate, indeed it is inescapable. But the problem is that we are regularly told to care about all the wrong things. “If we continue to maintain that God created the world in six days, we will not be granted academic respectability.” To which we must reply, well, who cares? Why should we care that the guardians of the academy believe that we are not intellectually respectable? They believe that the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are all blood relations. Why do we want their seal of approval on our intellectual abilities? It is like asking Fidel Castro to comment on the economic viability of Microsoft.

Full article available here

On Tuesday of last week I had posted on Twitter the following introspection:

“Atheism is conceit in ignorance. Christianity is humility in knowledge.”

Now it seems that an atheist named Roger Sinasohn, who I do not know, discovered my post and decided it deserved a critical response, and soon we were engaged in what can be called my first Twitter debate. (Let me tell you, nothing can force you to articulate and defend your position with succinct clarity like a 140-characters restriction!) The following is the material content of that debate. I hope you enjoy it. It will be updated until completed.

8 December 2009 — Present (updated 16/Dec/09)

Sinasohn: Thinking that the entire universe was created just for you is humility? Wow. I’m sure glad you’re not conceited.

davidinbc: God did not create the universe for the universe (‘we’ are part of it). He created it for himself.

Sinasohn: I see. You’re saying god is the conceited one. All this is just his playground & we’re one of his toys. Makes sense.

davidinbc: Given the word’s definition, God can’t be conceited. Still waiting for a reply that can stand rationally.

Sinasohn: You believe in an all-powerful god. You think he likes you (humans/christians) best. You think that makes you humble.

Sinasohn: I don’t believe in god. I think the universe is huge and that I am not even as important (in the grand scheme of things)…

Sinasohn: …not even as important as bellybutton lint. And you say that atheism is conceited. See No. 1: http://bit.ly/8gXjPr

davidinbc: Christianity confesses that mankind are sinners deserving of God’s wrath, the antithesis of that definition you cited. Next?

davidinbc: (P.S., That you don’t believe in God proves the conceit, not refutes it.)

Sinasohn: I am no sinner; I’ve done nothing wrong. What did you do? And why do you think god cares?

Sinasohn: There are billions of people on this planet alone — what makes you so special that god gives a rat’s ass about you?

Sinasohn: Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Ra? Ganesh? No? Does that make you conceited?

davidinbc: The definition of ‘sinner’ is one who disobeys God’s commands; ergo, you are a sinner by definition. We all are, including me.

davidinbc: And there is nothing special about me. God’s love is in the context of Christ alone, about whom much is special.

davidinbc: And my disbelief in idols has nothing to do with my self-estimation. A brutal non-sequitur, there.

Sinasohn: But you are claiming it is my disbelief in idols that makes me conceited. How is your god any different from anyone else’s god?

Sinasohn: So you’re are saying that god knows nothing of you, cares nothing about you, doesn’t even notice you, tiny speck in the universe?

Sinasohn: If that’s the case, why notice him? Why care about, let alone worship god? Or are you saying that god does pay attention to you?

Sinasohn: If you think god cares about you, then you are conceited, like an obsessed fan thinking a rockstar notices them in the crowd.

davidinbc: God cares about me because of who Christ is and what he did, not because of who I am or anything I’ve done (not conceited).

davidinbc: Either God is the authority over human reason (not conceited), or human reason is the authority over God (conceited). So, next?

Sinasohn: You’re saying that god (or his kid) cares about you personally out of the billions on this planet, not to mention elsewhere?

Sinasohn: Again, that’s like being in the crowd as the president drives by and thinking he’s smiling at you specifically. That’s conceit.

Sinasohn: And if you’re going to say god (all-powerful, ‘member?) can care about everyone, then I’ll ask why doesn’t he?

Sinasohn: god is auth over humans or humans over god… or god don’t exist. I’ll take door no. 3.

davidinbc: It’s conceit only if God’s caring has to do with who I am or what I’ve done, which it doesn’t. Look at the definition again.

davidinbc: And he sent his only Son to justify the ungodly, even though we deserved condemnation. How much more caring do you need?

davidinbc: Door 3: human reason is the authority over God, by assuming him out of every category.

Sinasohn: god sent his son to be killed just to absolve you? Wow. He likes you more than his own kid. You both sure think a lot of you.

davidinbc: God’s love for anyone is BECAUSE of Christ. He thinks highly of the Son, in whom sinners are saved because of it.

‘Twas the night before Jesus came, and all through the house
Not a creature was praying, not one in the house.
Their Bibles were lain on the shelf without a care
In hopes that Jesus would not come there.

The children were dressing to crawl into bed,
Not once ever kneeling or bowing a head.
And mom in her rocker with baby on her lap
Was watching the Late Show while I took a nap.

When out of the east there arose such a clatter,
I sprang to my feet to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

When what to my wondering eyes should appear
But angels proclaiming that Jesus was here.
With a light like the sun sending forth a bright ray
I knew in a moment this must be The Day!

The light of his face made me cover my head.
It was Jesus, returning just like he had said.
And though I possessed worldly wisdom and wealth,
I cried when I saw Him in spite of myself.

In the Book of Life, which he held in his hand,
Was written the name of every saved man.
He spoke not a word as he searched for my name.
When He said, “It’s not here,” my head hung in shame.

The people whose names had been written with love
He gathered to take to his Father above.
With those who were ready, he rose without a sound,
While all the rest were left standing around.

I fell to my knees, but it was too late;
I had waited too long and thus sealed my fate.
I stood and I cried as they rose out of sight.
Oh if only I had been ready tonight.

In the words of this poem the meaning is clear;
The coming of Jesus is drawing near.
There’s only one life and, when comes the last call,
We’ll find that the Bible was true after all.

— Audrey Patricia Woolverton

Click here to read Dr. Albert Mohler’s explanation for why he chose to sign the Manhattan Declaration. In my estimation, it was a powerful testimony of the necessity, passion, and courage of this document which addresses three central issues that threaten the very stability of contemporary society. The thoughts which Dr. Mohler closed his article with were especially strong, which I have included here in the hopes that it compels you to read the full article.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge—that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth—and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

(Last updated: 21/Nov/2009)

Over at the blog of my new friend, Duane Proud, [1] I am having an ongoing discussion [2] with a fellow named Adam on what can be characterized as the necessity of salvation. I am publishing the contents of that conversation here at this site because I want to build a library of intelligent discourse on important issues related to salvation and apologetics, two of my favourite subjects, which will be published under Conversations With Christians on the one hand, and Conversations With Atheists on the other. It will be a work in progress for a while so don’t look for these sections yet.

The conversation was sparked generally by the response I had given to the atheist Fluke and his “ropes” analogy of salvation (read Duane’s post for the context). This led to an exploration of particular theological issues between myself and Marc, who is an apparent ‘open theist’, beginning at Comment #34 (after Duane had emailed me privately and asked for my thoughts on Marc’s arguments), which had prompted Adam to ask the following:

Does everyone get a choice? Do the non-elect get a choice to reject or accept God? Does God, knowing those who will not freely choose Him, deny them that choice? … I’m a little hazy on the issue but I thought that there is some sort of free-will choice made for God in the Calvinist view of salvation. God, knowing what that choice will be, acts accordingly by diving in to retrieve those corpses of the bottom of the ocean of those that choose Him.

Read the rest of this entry