The Sword Room

Sometimes we get mixed up as Christians in our thinking about how God works because we hold to a false dichotomy or dualism. In plain language what this means is we often wrongly conclude that God is present and blessing us only when we are praying, reading the Word, witnessing, or consciously thinking and talking about spiritual matters. As a result we attempt to manufacture the work of the Spirit through outward appearances and behaviors. This practice is called Pietism.

Pietism rears its head in many ways, from quiet contemplative false humility to identifying the work of the Spirit in emotionalism and sensationalism. The error of Pietism is two-fold: not only does it identify the nature of spirituality in outward appearances and behaviors, but it presents a false dichotomy that says life is divided into two compartments: the spiritual and the profane.

At the root of Pietism is a denial of the Providence of God. Question 11 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is God’s Providence?” The answer is then given: “God’s providence is His completely holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing every creature and every action.” God is always at work, and God can and does work in and through what we would consider normal or natural means. While Pietism teaches us that God is to be worshipped in a specific place at a specific time in one prescribed manner only, biblical providence declares that all of life is worship–not just some little corner of life that we label as spiritual. God’s Spirit does not need us to be in a visible emotionally ecstatic state to authenticate His presence and power. Nor does He need us to be quietly sitting in a dimly-lit corner with our shoulders rounded and lips pursed like little pharisees, praying for all those unfortunate sinners out there in the big bad world.

All through Acts we see how God worked mightily in and through Paul in the confirmation of the Gospel by conversions, miracles, and exorcisms. But in Chapter 22 we see God using ordinary means in the life of the Apostle to accomplish His purpose. The commander and centurion protect Paul from harm. Little do they know that God is using them to preserve His chosen vessel and that their actions would be recorded in God’s Word for millions of future readers to see. Surely Paul never anticipated that one day his lifelong status as a Roman citizen would be used by God to keep him from being unduly punished. Notice, too, that Paul spoke up for himself and used his “rights” as a Roman citizen. A more pietistic approach would have been to pray and “trust God” rather than to take things into his own hands and ”operate in the flesh.”

What idiocy! Christians, look around you. Everywhere there is evidence of God’s majesty and presence through general revelation in the created order. You do not need God to speak to you through an inner impression or so-called word of knowledge in order for Him to reveal Himself. Of course, God can do whatever He chooses, but He is not bound by our false dualisms and dichotomies. Be done with this neo-gnostic compartmentalized view of the  world and Christian life. Look for God to work in and through the most ordinary and mundane circumstances, as well as through miraculous means if He so chooses. God is providentially present in your life always. The hairs of your head are numbered, and not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from His knowledge and control. God will take care of you. Correction: God is taking care of you!

Israel rejected God as their king in place of an earthly ruler. In their foolishness they thought a powerful human warrior king would provide them the visible tangible security they desired, instead of the theocratic system where they must trust the unseen God and rely on a succession of judges raised up by the Lord for their protection and deliverance. As then so now, people want to look to a man instead of God.

So God gave the people what they wanted–Saul. Saul was a handsome man who stood head-and-shoulders above the people; but inside he was a cowardly, spineless, compromising fool who ultimately was forsaken by the Lord and after consulting a medium for guidance before taking his own life on the field of battle entered into an eternity of conscious torment.

After Saul it was David who, although he was a man after God’s own heart, was a loose cannon with a weakness for women. When he died he was succeeded by his son Solomon. Solomon was granted extraordinary wisdom by the Lord but he was so busy building an ornate temple supposedly for the Lord, that he laid a heavy burden of taxation on the people while at the same time allowing their worship of pagan deities to go unchecked. When he died and was succeeded by his son Rehoboam the people were fed up.

I have been reading about these events today in 1 Kings 12. When Rehoboam came to power the northern ten tribes assembled at Shechem to ask for relief from the heavy burden of taxation. Such a request was not unreasonable given the fact that the temple was completed. Rehoboam’s elderly and more seasoned advisors counseled him to grant the request of the people; but he ignored their advice and listened to his younger circle of friends and told the people: My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins….My father chastised you with cords, but I will chastise you with whips (12:10-11).

What happens when people are squashed under the hand of a heartless despot who will not listen to their cries? They rebel and look, not to God, but for another human ruler who will dance to their drum and offer them a meal ticket. The application to our present situation here in America is obvious. Many feel that we have a president who disregards the constitution, does an end-around the legislative branch with executive orders, and puts political pressure on the judicial branch to get them on board with his agenda. Working class people and business owners are complaining about higher taxes squandered on government handout programs. Illegal aliens are receiving better benefits than military veterans. First and Second Amendment rights are hanging in the balance and people are asked to tighten the belt at a time when the president spends millions to go play golf in Florida with Tiger Woods, and the first Lady opens the envelope and announces the Oscar winner. Of course we are not in a covenant relationship with God as was Israel–the church is God’s holy nation, royal priesthood, and special people (1 Peter 2:8-10).

The ten tribes from the north looked to Jeroboam as their deliverer. They broke away from Judah and Levi to the south–seceded from the union, if you will. But Jereboam, who had been a military superstar under Solomon, adopted golden-calf worship during his exile in Egypt after Solomon started viewing him as a rival and put out a hit on his life. Jereboam didn’t want the people to be tied to the temple in Jerusalem and the Levitical system of worship, as prescribed by God in the Mosaic Covenant. So he created a new centralized place of worship–actually two: one in Bethel, the southernmost extremity of his domain, and one in Dan at the northernmost border. He had two golden calves made and created a whole new caste of priests who were not descendants of Levi or Aaron. This was a completely apostate system, but Jeroboam convinced the people that these golden calves were indeed responsible for their exodus from Egyptian bondage years earlier. How? He offered them freedom from oppression and a better meal ticket. That’s all it took then, and that’s all it would take now.

However, as believers we need to step back from the fervor, take a deep breath, and see one thing very clearly with regard to our current situation. For the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the lord (12:15). What we are seeing in our country has come to pass by the sovereign eternal decree of God–not one speck of it is outside His control. God has given us a godless, wicked, unregenerate, arrogant, autocratic president because we have rejected Him who is the only source of life and have carved out broken cisterns for ourselves that can hold no water. We are getting what we deserve. That smoldering stub, Jeremiah Wright, spoke prophetically after the fashion of Balaam’s ass when he declared that America’s chickens have come home to roost. The evangelical church in America has been slowly rotting from the inside out for decades, having been infected with the spiritual AIDS virus of Arminianism and the puny false god of the Arminian system. There is a famine in the land for the word of God. We have Bibles galore but no one wants to actually teach fearlessly the truths contained in those sacred pages. The remedy for our national ills is revival within the body of Christ. What we do not need is more dispy-Arminianism, psychobabble, and warm fuzzy swooning to narcissistic ditties and pulpit pabulum.

The Tea Party is a joke. Too many believers have mistaken the right wing of the Republican Party for the Kingdom of God. That is a mistake with disastrous consequences. Why? Because if you seek relief from oppression but refuse to repent of your false system of theology and the false god of that system, ultimately you will be swapping one godless leader for another. You will reject Rehoboam and replace him with Jeroboam. If you don’t understand where I’m going I strongly urge you to read my book: Breaking the Box: Rebuilding Faith in the God of the Bible.

I’m sorry, but this is no time to mince words. Time for all of us as God’s elect to get off our ass and on our knees. Time to pull our heads out of our derrieres and get that nose into the Word of God instead of the TV or computer screen. There is no guarantee of a best life now. Things may likely get worse before they get better. You may get cold, tired and hungry waging the good fight–but do not trade your birthright for a bowl of soup, thereby proving that like Esau you are a reprobate hated by God and headed for damnation.

Repent. And realize that God’s eternal purpose can never be confounded. Remember too, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism reminds us, that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. There is a joy and peace in serving the true God of Scripture and the real Jesus that transcends all description and comprehension.

Time to wake up and smell the spiritual coffee. Straight up, strong, and steaming hot.

Here is a scene from the movie Hardcore where the famous actor George C. Scott summarizes the biblical doctrines of grace. He is either rejoicing in glory now or gnawing his tongue in agony. His personality fits the stereotype of the typical Calvinist, does it not?

AW Tozer, in his classic book, The Knowledge of the Holy claims to believe in the sovereignty of God. He says he is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. His supposedly mediating position is explained in the following way:

Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities.On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man’s freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God’s sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being. We know that God will fulfill every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that God’s perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is omnipotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.

Since I cited this quotation of Tozer in a post nearly three years ago I have heard it used a few times in sermons and casual conversation. Please comment as to whether you think it is a fitting analogy or a distortion of biblical teaching.

We have been discussing how a good and all-powerful God can will evil and suffering, either by decree or by permission (allowing it). Why would He have created such a world where He knew that sin and its effects would ravage the lives of so many in this world and and the next? This so-called problem of evil and suffering is what fuels the arguments of atheists like Christopher Hitchins. Bertrand Russell in his famous book, Why I am not a Christian, argues over and over that the presence of evil and suffering in the world proves that the God of the Bible does not exits.

The atheist reasons thus. If a good God existed He would not want evil and suffering in the world, and if He were all-powerful He would stop it. The existence of evil shows that if a deity does exist–which is highly doubtful–he/she/it is not the all-good all-powerful God of the Bible. How are we to respond to this age-old line of reasoning.

The first thing I do any time someone argues against the existence of God in this way is to compliment them for taking evil seriously. We certainly do live in a world where evil is an objective reality. Everyone knows at some level that stealing and murdering are wrong; and who but the pedophile himself does not cringe at the thought of an adult sexually molesting a child?

But wait. Who is to say these things are evil? And just what is evil anyway? If there is no God, where does moral law come from? Many will deny the existence of God because according to the scientific method (empirical evidence gathered using the physical senses) we cannot either prover or falsify the claim that God exists.  But this same logic could be used to deny the existence of evil. After all, what color is evil? What does is taste, sound, feel, and look like. If we are strictly scientific we must conclude that all we are is a bunch of chemicals with no inherent value, and we live in a world where sh– happens. It is neither good nor evil–it simply is what it is. The whole argument against God’s existence based on the reality of evil is a rational rather than empirical argument. At the end of the day if we deny the existence of God we have no basis for moral law and relativity reigns.

Moral law presupposes a supreme lawgiver who is good and all-powerful. But the question remains: Why did God create a world full of suffering and evil. The Arminian offers an answer that plays into the hands of the atheist. God created humans with a libertarian free will, and He has chosen not to violate that free will. In other words, man is sovereign over his own choices. And why did God give man this freedom of the will? Because, so goes the argument, genuine love cannot exist without the freedom to choose to love or not love God. God wanted–needed–to be loved so badly that he was willing to “risk it” for the love of a few, while multitudes refused to love Him and suffered eternal consequences. This theory of free will must be smuggled into the biblical text from without. It just ain’t there.

Scripture teaches that God needs nothing outside His self-contained triune nature and being. He is in absolute control of everything in creation, right down to the smallest atom. He knows the stars by name, and the number of the hairs on our heads. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from Him. Evil exists because He created a universe in which evil would fulfill His sovereign purpose and bring ultimate glory to Him. We define goodness according to our own needs and terms, but God alone determines not only what is right, but what is good.

At the end of the day we do not know why God decreed evil and suffering. What we do know is that He is all-good and all-powerful, and if He did not exist there would be no such things as evil, goodness, love, freedom, beauty, and meaning, because these all exist as reflections of His glory.

Many years ago when my older children Josh, Josie, and Justin were 10, 8, and 5 years of age I did an experiment to illustrate the compatibilist view of free will. Before I tell the rest of the story permit me to explain that there are two major theories of so-called free will among professing believers.

The first is called libertarian free will. According to those who hold this position (Arminians), a choice is free only if the possibility of multiple or contrary choices is present. It would seem to follow that if a choice is predetermined then it cannot be free in the libertarian sense. If it is predetermined, for example, that I will choose option A and not option B, then I am not free to not choose A–I must choose A. Proponents of libertarian free will re-define the biblical concepts of election and predestination to make them conditional on man’s forseen choices. Openness theologians, realizing that the Arminian concept of foreknowledge implies determinism, reject the idea that God can foreknow with certainty what people will choose. Others sidestep the clear biblical teaching on election and predestination with the erroneous doctrines of corporate election and prevenient grace. Or they water down the biblical doctrine of total depravity (inability).

Those who are mis-labeled “Calvinists” hold to what is called compatibilist free will. According to this view a choice can be predetermined with certainty and free at the same time. The possibility of contrary choice is not necessary as long as the person makes the choice with no sense of outside coercion. In other words, they do what they want to do within the bounds of their nature. I happen to believe this is the view of free will taught in Scripture–and I am not alone. It was the view of Christ, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Warfield, Hodge, and many others. Modern proponents of this view are Piper, Sproul, and Grudem.

Now back to the story. My three kids (we only had three at that time) were playing in the back yard.  The youngest (Justin) was playing off by himself and I called the older two (Josh and Josie)  into the house. I gave them each a cookie, knowing they would head back outside and eat them in front of Justin. I also knew Justin well enough to know exactly what he would do the minute he saw them eating the cookies: he would want one too and come into the house to ask me for one. He had no idea that this was exactly what I wanted him to do or that I had orchestrated events so that he would ask me for a cookie. From his perspective the choice was completely free because even though predetermined it was exactly what he wanted to do.

Where the analogy breaks down is in my fallibility. While on the way into the house Justin might have spotted a snake and forgotten all about the cookie–I would have no control over this unforseen event. But God is all-knowing, and He is in control of all secondary causes. There would be no breakdown in the plan. He is able to predetermine not only the choices of His creatures, but to orchestrate the events leading up to them in such a way that our choices are totally free. We do what we want to do within the bounds of our nature with no sense of coercion from without.

Put a bucket of oats in front of a horse alongside a bucket of KFC. Does the horse have a free choice? Depends on what you mean. Is he free to do what he wants to do? Yes, but because he is a horse he is bound by his nature and will always choose the oats. Likewise lost unregenerate sinners are dead spiritually. All they are able to do is reject Christ unless God quickens their hearts and grants them faith and repentance. When they reject Christ they are doing exactly what they want to do. Once God regenerates the sinner he believes, not because he has to, but because he wants to.

This is the compatibilist understanding of free will. Our choices are predetermined and yet free. Makes perfect sense to me, but those of an Arminian persuasion will persist in kicking against the goads.

There are those who label biblical determinism as fatalism. Such language is equivalent to pagans using the term fundamentalism to describe biblical Christianity. Both terms are loaded with negative connotations, which is the idea behind their use. Meaningful discussion can be swept aside when all Christians are lumped together within the pale of fundamentalism; and when biblical determinism is referred to as fatalism, in a word many godly theologians of the past and present (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Warfield, Hodge, and more recently Piper) can be written off as fatalists. At some point, however, intellectual honesty would demand that we admit the difference between biblical determinism and classic fatalism. Presented below is a brief explanation of the distinctions between fatalism and predestination.

Predestination Versus Fatalism

• Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004. pp. 130-131.

Let us leave off, then, using loaded language with reference to those theological concepts which do not tickle our fancy. Healthy discussion and debate should be welcomed, but sweeping and false misrepresentations are to be avoided.

Do you like straight Vanilla ice cream, French Vanilla, or that kind that has the little flecks of Vanilla bean mixed in. At the end of the day it’s still Vanilla.

I am tired of people harping about the importance of voting and how we the people have so much ability to effect change through the political process. Recently I heard a friend say that next November we will have a choice between two rich white guys. What? Obama and Romney are both rich, but Obama is black. But wait–why is he “black?” He is half white and half black. On that basis alone one should be able to claim him as white. Add to that the fact that he was raised in Hawaii by white grandparents and attended an all-white prep school. My friend refers to him as a rich white guy who is playing the race card for political reasons–and he maintains that if you think that is a racist statement then you have been drinking too much Kool-Aid. 

Both Romney and Obama claim to be Christians. If we define what a Christian is by strictly biblical criteria, then I have grave doubts about both men. Both appear to be unbelieving pagans to me. No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I know Romney is a Mormon, and I am not sure what Obama is. But his political philosophy and policy decisions do not reflect Christian values in my view.

So you have two rich white guys who say they are Christians. There you go: exercise your free will and vote for your favorite. Make no mistake, I intend to do just that. (Yes, I do believe in free will, rightly defined).

About a week ago there was some heat in here about the whole issue of free will. One person commented that their bottom-line is that: I believe that God created free will by the act of creating love, the second being impossible without the first. I have been meaning to take a deeper look at this statement ever since it was first posted, but haven’t had the time until now.

I have heard several variations of this view over the years. If I understand it correctly it goes something like this: God created love, but in order to create love He also had to create free will because you cannot have love without free will. Of course God by nature is love and he is eternally free, so what I take this to mean is that God created love and free will in humans as part of His divine image. Some have expanded this argument by saying that God wanted creatures who would love Him as He loved them. But for the love to be genuine it must be voluntary, which implies they could choose not to love him. Only if they had the ability of contrary choice (Libertarian Free Will) could the love be real.

In other words if choice A is loving God and choice B is not loving God, my choosing of option A is a free choice only if I can also freely choose option B. And here is where we get to the real meat of the matter. Those who hold to a Libertarian form of free will insist that if our choices are predetermined they cannot be free. If God has determined from eternity that I will choose option A, then I cannot not choose A. In other words I am not free to choose B, so that B is not really an option. I am a robot, and my love for God is programmed, coerced, etc. It can in no way be considered free or even real.

It does no good here to appeal to God’s foreknowledge–you know, the idea that God looked down the corridors of time to see what I would freely choose and then based His decree on that sneak preview. First of all, God’s knowledge is immediate and innate, since he is the fountainhead of all wisdom and knowledge–all truth is God’s truth. God does not learn anything. Secondly, for God to know for certain what I will do from all eternity means my choice has been rendered certain. God is the first cause of all things, and in eternity only He existed, so that He is the only one who could have rendered my choice certain. So the argument from foreknowledge is really just another shade of determinism. The only solution to this “problem” is to opt for an open theism which says God really does not know what our choices will be–we determine them spontaneously at the very instant we choose. Of course even the staunchiest Bible-believing Arminian would reject such a notion.

I said earlier that I believe in a form of free will. Scripture does not teach libertarian free will as I have outlined it above. Nor is the assumption biblical that  freedom of contrary choice is necessary for genuine love to exist. Most Arminians believe God loves everyone because God is love. Does God the Father have freedom of contrary choice to not love God the Son? If not, how can His love be genuine? Mind you, I do not believe Scripture teaches that God loves everyone, but that is a side issue to be bantered about at a future date.

If you go strictly by Scripture you will hold to what is called Compatibalist Free Will. Our choices are predetermined by God and yet free. According to Scripture the ability of contrary choice is not what makes our choices free, but rather the ability to do what we want to do within the confines of our nature with no sense of coercion. Let’s start with God. Choice A is that the Father loves the Son, and there is no choice B. It is impossible for the Father not to love the Son because it is not within his nature to want to do anything else but love Him. No one makes Him love the Son–it’s what he wants to do.

What would happen if you took a pig from wallowing in the mud, scrubbed him pink, doused him with perfume, put a ribbon on his tail and a gold ring in his nose, and set before him two choices. First, a beautiful table setting with fine linens and china, and a smattering of delicacies from around the world. Second you offer him a mud hole and the slop he is used to eating. Does the pig have a free will? It depends on what you mean. If you mean does he have the ability to choose the fine spread over the slop hole? then the answer is no. But if you mean does he have the ability to do exactly what his nature as a pig wants to do and craves? then the answer is yes.

The bottom line is that the Bible does not teach libertarian free will. My belief is that most Arminians start with this unbiblical assumption and approach the Bible with it, and thus it governs how they understand and interpret God’s Word. If you simply read the whole Bible and let it speak for itself you cannot help but hold to a compatibalist view of free will.

So come November do what you want. Vote for either one or none of the two rich allegedly Christian white guys running for president. Pick your favorite flavor of Vanilla! Just remember that Jesus Christ is the ruler of the kings of the earth. Obama and Romney are no different than Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, or Pilate. They have no power but what God allows them to have. And He can take them down as quickly as He raises them up.

God’s election carries infinitely more weight than ours!

In my last post I lampooned the fad-ish-ness of American Evangelicalism. Christians are often like people who have been married for a few years and want to get that old spark back. Reading the Word, going to church, praying–it starts feeling like meat-loaf Thursday for the umpteenth week in a row.

So the idea is to generate excitement with some new program or activity. Once that fizzles out then it’s time to move on to the next thing. Problem is it never really works.

Sunday night I went and visited a little church a few miles out of our neighborhood. I got there a few minutes early and there were a half dozen people standing around in the tiny sanctuary. Their faces were flat as to affect and they greeted me unenthusiastically. The song leader showed up five minutes late and led us through the singing of four old hymns. The regular pastor had the night off, so a man looking to be in his late eighties preached a message about King Ahaz from Isaiah 7. After his sermon the preacher dismissed us with a benediction. I made small talk with an elderly gentleman for a few minutes after the service before driving home.

Those of a more Pentecostal persuasion would say such a service was dead. Their answer to such deadness is a lot of hollering, blabbering in tongues, and emotional release–5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. Either way I see no real fire–one approach simply has more smoke.

The thing both approaches have in common is that they are impotent in terms of reaching the lost. Mind you, the church service is not designed for evangelism. Ideally a worship service should be a place of fellowship with Christ and others, covenant renewal, and an equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry and building up of the body of Christ. Frankly the “dead” little church I visited was closer to the mark because at least someone intelligibly expounded the Word of God.

Problem is the people looked like they were bored stiff. It was as though they were going to church out of habit, but really had no reason to be there. They were just going through the motions.

I think this is one area where the gurus of the missional movement are correct. The church needs to have a sense of mission outside the four walls of the physical building. The question is, what is that mission and how should it be carried out?

One thing I know for certain–if you build on the doctrinal quicksand of Arminianism you will never end up in the right place. You will jump from one man-centered gimmick to another to be hip and relevant and to woo sinners to Christ. You will opt for mystical models of spiritual formation devoid of biblical support, and you will look within to hear the voice of God instead of to His completed Word. From here it is a downward spiral into deeper deception and error.

My mission is to be true to the word of God. Walk within the patterns of biblically defined sanctification. Then, as I live and move about in the world I want to see every person whose life I touch as someone I can be a channel of blessing to. If I am able to love a non-elect person, then God will bring the memory of His common grace back to their view on the day of judgment. There is always the hope that I will be granted an opportunity to present the life-giving gospel and God will be pleased to regenerate some to salvation.

If I am going to be missional then that is the way I want to do it. Love God and love my neighbor as myself. I am even to love my enemies. You might well ask:  if God does not love the Esaus of the world, why would He command me to do so? The answer is simple–God has every right to love whom He will, save whom He will, and harden the rest. But I am a sinner, and I have no right to hate anyone on the basis that they are a sinner; for otherwise I would be compelled to hate myself.

Here is a passage in the New Testament that is used to support the idea that God wants to save everyone exhaustively:

Therefore I exhort that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

The word all is used four times in these verses, and its meaning is the crux of proper interpretation. You might wonder how many different meanings the word all can have, so let’s take a closer look at the text. First, Paul tells Timothy to pray for all men. All men? How in the world could anyone pray for the billions of men alive in the world at any given time? Never mind that he is commanding that only men be prayed for; for if he is speaking generically then he is telling Timothy to pray for every living human being exhaustively regardless of gender. Such a prayer would sound like the ones we’ve heard a hundred times in Wednesday night Bible studies: Dear Lord, please bless all the missionaries…

Interestingly, right after the command to pray for all men Paul specifies that kings and those in authority be the objects of prayer. I am therefore inclined to think what Paul is saying is that he wants Timothy to pray for all kinds of men, rather than all men (people) exhaustively. Civil authorities are often the last people we would pray for even in our relatively persecution-free culture. Think of how hard it would be to not only pray tor the salvation of a godless despot, but to believe God would want to save him.

If such an understanding of the word all is correct then it must also apply when it says in v. 4 that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God does not save only from one ethnic or economic group–is it His desire to save all kinds of men.

Now I imagine some of you see this as semantic casuistry or sleight of hand. ALL MEANS ALL! you protest. What about in Mark 1:5, where we are told that all the land of Judea and Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John in the Jordan river? Was all the land mass actually transported supernaturally? Did every last living breathing person make the trip? Looks to me like what it is saying is that a whole lot of people went out to the Jordan, and nothing more. How many times in modern usage have you heard a young person defend the latest cool trend by reasoning that everyone is doing it. Everyone does not always mean everyone exhaustively; likewise all does not always mean all exhaustively.

For these reasons I do not think 1 Timothy 2:1-4 supports the Arminian claim that God desires to save every last human being. What say you?