Bondage of the Will

Internet search "Bondage of the Will" | J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston

[Dahlseide]

The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, translators of Luther's masterpiece from German and Latin to English, say in the Introduction: "Free will was no academic question to Luther; the whole Gospel of the grace of God, he held, was bound up with it, and stood or fell according to the way one decided it. . . . It is not the part of a true theologian, Luther holds, to be unconcerned, or to pretend to be unconcerned, when the Gospel is in danger. . .. The doctrine of the Bondage of the Will in particular was the corner-stone of the Gospel and the foundation of faith" (40-41, emphasis added).

"In particular, the denial of free will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the Gospel and come to faith in God. The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel" (44-45, emphasis added).

"Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide [by faith alone] is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia [by grace alone]; . . for to rely on one’s self for faith is not different in principle from relying on one’s self for works" (59, emphasis added).

The Bible teaches that faith itself is and has to be, a gift of God, by grace, and not of self (Ephesians 2:8). It is safe to deduce that for Luther, any evangelist who advocates free will has not only "not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel," but also that he has not yet preached the Gospel at all; his is a counterfeit gospel.

Luther was ordered to recant his teachings on threat of excommunication. Luther thundered, "Unless I am convinced by Scriptures and plain reason [for Luther, this meant logic], my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything. Here I stand, I can do no other!"

[From a review in The Trinity Review]

Martin Luther (1483-1546) shattered the structure of the Medieval Church by demanding that the authority for doctrine and practice be the Scriptures rather than popes or councils, and ignited the famous Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not refute his logic, so they attempted to have him killed. But he was protected by Frederic. It has been said that more books have been written about Luther than about any other person except Jesus Christ.

Paperback 5 1/2" x 8 1/2” , 164 pages I.S.B.N. 1-878442-51-1

$10.99 Retail

[Dahlseide]

The above is stolen from an internet search, I did not delete any of the info, i.e. see the quoted price etc. My only criteria was to capture the preface/translation by J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston

[watchin]

So are you saying that others, having no free will, cannot now choose to agree with you ... or that if we were to be persuaded by your argument and agree with your doctrine, it would do us no good, since that would be "works"?

The point of your post seems to be that 1)nobody can, by an act of the will, please God and 2)anyone who disagrees with you is therefore wrong.

When I put those together, you post seems entirely pointless.

[watchin]

1 John 2:2
²And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

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

2 Peter 3:9
⁹The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Luther was an important figure. Where he and the Bible diverge, though, I'll follow the Bible.

[MHGinTN]

In the summer of 1971, I bowed my head and thanked the Lord for dying on that cross for me. I stood before a congregation of people, some of whom I knew from childhood but hadn't seen in more than a decade, and stated clearly that if one will not profess openly belief in the Savior, He could not stand before God in Heaven to speak out for them. I still believe that. I am assured that my acceptance of God's Grace in Christ has put my eternal destiny in His hands ... and there are no surer hands to which I can commend my spirit. Nothing can stand against His Will, His Will be done.

It is not by accident that the altar of incense was placed squarely in front of the drape separating the Holy Place from The Holy of Holies, for the altar of incense in the Tabernacle represents the will of the individual soul and to face that altar the knee must be bowed before the Holy of Holies. Once you bow to His Grace in Christ, He, not you, is responsible for your eternal destiny.

[watchin]

"the altar of incense in the Tabernacle represents the will of the individual soul"

Interesting concept. Do you have any scriptural support for such an assertion?

Until I see a scriptural link between the altar of incense and the will of the individual, I'll assume that this is just another example (be it Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist) of making scripture fit doctrine, rather than the other way around.

I would think a better case could be made for linking incense to prayer.

Luke 1:10
¹⁰And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

Revelation 5:8
⁸And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours (i.e. incense; the KJV translates the same Greek word inconsistently), which are the prayers of saints.

Revelation 8:3-4
³And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. ⁴And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

[watchin]

Looking once again at your post, I'm confused. I'm not sure which side you're on in this free will debate, or if you're intentionally trying to "split the difference" in the name of peace.

So ... are you for freewill ...

I am assured that my acceptance of God's Grace in Christ has put my eternal destiny in His hands

... or against it?

Nothing can stand against His Will, His Will be done

Again, are you for it ...

Once you bow to His Grace in Christ...

... or against it?

He, not you, is responsible for your eternal destiny.

[William Terrell]

However, freewill is an observable thing. It exists and is seen and used by everyone everyday.

[watchin]

Psalm 141:2
² Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

[MHGinTN]

I'm not in a debate. I had a free will, to choose to accept God's Grace in Christ or not. When I accepted, it became His promise to keep me that went into effect regarding my eternal destiny. The where/when that the offer of His Grace is made is up to Him. We best not limit God's power or Grace with our imaginings which limit us.

[watchin]

Nice reply. I agree.

The gospel is simple enough for anyone to enter the kingdom, yet complex enough that none of us can understand it completely.

Thank God it is by grace, rather than by knowledge, that we are saved.

Most of the "debates" are in areas beyond our grasp, and any effort to oversimplify ultimately distorts the gospel.

[Dahlseide]

I'm not in a debate with you or anyone. I posted because I hoped for a discussion that would help me, now maybe you also, understand the meaning of "free will" as it applies to salvation.

It does not aid my understanding to state that Martin Luther, myself or you, or anyone who states they are a Christian, simply say Where he and the Bible diverge, though, I'll follow the Bible.

A couple of years ago the topic Free Will occupied many threads. Some believed it got rather acrimonious, myself included. However the topic, as stated in the post, is important to the point that Luther thought it was at the heart of the gospel. .

Back then P-Marlowe asked me about my experience and I replied that I became a Calvinist after I was unknowingly already a Calvinist. I described an image that I heard during a sermon that completed my understanding of my salvation. The image was simply this: Picture an arch over heaven, on the earthward side the inscription on the arch reads “whosoever may ….” And on the heavenward side looking back (post salvation) it reads “chosen from ….”

The image gave me a perfect way to describe for myself and anyone already saved, how it all happened. So it was God all along, even though I had no idea then, or experientially now, that God was (yes) forcing me, through his marvelous Grace, to the heavenward side of the arch.

As an aside, please do not dismiss the above as “he is just stating Lutheran doctrine”, my guess is that more Lutherans agree with you than me.

Should this post interest anyone I am very willing to keep it alive, there is a whole lot more to be said about the topic Bondage of the Will

[Dahlseide]

It certainly seems so to you & me until we realize, post salvation, that we were chosen from the ..... Subsequently, that in spite of our post salvation knowlege that we are born through the sin of Adam to be sinful & unclean, God through His Grace elected us to salvation.

I liken it to the dog who has no idea, without (ha ha!) me telling him so, that he has no free will.

So it was that God through the revelation of Scriptures revealed to us, understood only in our post-salvation state, that we did not "chose" him he chose us in spite of our so-called "free will".

If you have yet to understand Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will, note I did not say agree with, you will not understand his/or my disparaging use of “free will” in regard to salvation.

[Dahlseide]

I think it is better said that you, immediately at the time of your salvation, did not believe that God was forcing you against your will. However, in your post-salvation state you have now recognized that it was God, in no way your "free will", that chose you - even against (gasp!!!) your natural-self (free)-will. Why you?, not John Doe, neither you (nor I) can say, because salvation is solely, and by Grace, in His Realm.

[Dahlseide]

The point of your post seems to be that 1)nobody can, by an act of the will, please God and 2)anyone who disagrees with you is therefore wrong. When I put those together, you post seems entirely pointless.

I can not take credit for the contents of the post, only for posting the contents.

Regarding your 1) you are correct on the assumption that I understand what watchin means by "act of the will".

Regarding your 2) I don't think you should claim that I think you, or anyone for that matter, are wrong because in disagreement with little ‘ol me. I take for granted that you as well as I still seek to understand what is true.

If you have understood the post you will probably realize, I did not say agree with, your 1) is the crux of the post and its referral to Bondage ...

[William Terrell]

Then who has God not elected to salvation?

[Dahlseide]

I ‘ll take your question at face value. I cannot tell you because, thankfully, I do not know.

As Spurgeon, I think it was, said whoever the unsaved are they do not have yellow stripes on their back so we must preach to all 'cause we can't lift their coat tail to determine to whom to preach.

There are many canards regarding so-called Calvinism

In spite of the canards, Calvinists preach to and pray for the same folks – i.e. saints &/or sinners.

[Dahlseide]

Any thoughts directed to the contents of the post?

[William Terrell]

There once was a man named Smith. All his life, events worked to his disadvantage. Everything he made broke. Everything he tried, failed. Every woman he dated took him for a fool.

One day, Smith was walking on the sidewalk and a car soaked him from a mud puddle, even though it had not rained in 6 months. So powerful was the splash, it threw him off his feet into a bed of sandspurs, after banking him off a telephone pole where a splinter ripped his coat and shirt before embeding itself under his flesh.

Finally, Smith could take no more. Rising up from the sandspur bed, and throwing his hand in the air, he screamed, "Lord! Why me alla tha' time?!".

Silence ensued, and two clouds rolled back, through which a beam of light projected. A bass voice rumbled in the distance.

"I dunno, Smith, there's just something about you that pisses me off."

Is that story pretty close to your spiritual philosophy?

[Dahlseide]

I bit, sorry I assumed so much from you.

[MHGinTN]

The image gave me a perfect way to describe for myself and anyone already saved, how it all happened. So it was God all along, even though I had no idea then, or experientially now, that God was (yes) forcing me, through his marvelous Grace, to the heavenward side of the arch. This schizophrenic perspective can be cited to validate the notion that no sin may occur but what God is repsonsible for allowing it, thus it is God who is ultimately responsible for the sin by the sinner, as if the sinner has in reality no free will since God sees the end fromt he beginning. I do not ascribe to that and I can illustrate why with a simple thought experiment.

We have a devout Buddhist who has live an entire life without ever even hearing the Gospel of Salvation through the Grace of God in Christ. This Buddhist has lived an honorable and humble life toward all others. At death, the Buddhist confronts the truth (and only truth will be 'over there' because were it otherwise, God would be negotiable) that Christ died so that the Buddhist's nature may be overcome and eternal life with God made possible for humankind. Because the Buddhist has lived devoutly and at peace toward all others, the truth resonates within the spirit of the Buddhist, and true to his devloped nature during his life, honoring truth over falsehood, he believes the truth. Another not so honorable 'buddhist' dies and confronts the same truth at the moment of crossing over. Because this fellow has spent his life seeking the exception clauses that would excuse his fulfilling his desires, he at once argues with the truth ... and the gates of Heaven are not open to such pride.

The scriptures read that at the final judgement, every (not just those that heard about it all during their lifetime on earth, EVERY) knee shall bow. If these two Buddhists mentioned are not included in the total of those to hear the truth of Christ, then the total is not 'every'.

[MHGinTN]

^

[William Terrell]

Sorry to disappoint, but that is exactly what you seem to be saying. Let me ask another way. If God meant anyone to be saved or not saved, how would you know? How would you know whether you are saved, or not?

Unless you take the view that time is expressed in the material "realm" as sequential moments, but as a completed whole outside the material "realm". Seem outside, all of what was done has been done and all choices made. Seem inside, each choice, major or minor, comes in a moment and is made in another, working out the process of bringing the whole into being.

That might make some sense to me. I don't believe the choice to follow the path of Christ, and the choices of behaviors and actions that are consistent with that acceptance, is meaningless.

[Dahlseide]

This schizophrenic perspective can be cited to validate the notion that no sin may occur but what God is responsible for allowing it, thus it is God who is ultimately responsible for the sin by the sinner, as if the sinner has in reality no free will since God sees the end from the beginning.,

I'll ignore, at least for now, your use of the word schizophrenic.

Otherwise I agree that the rejection of free-will as it pertains to salvation can be sited as you state. Shortly after I first believed I was confronted with Romans Chp 9 - I'll bore you with my early Christian life. About one week later I remembered how my Dad loved the Book of Job, which resulted in my reading it. Near the end of Job I realized - I was following the line of reasoning you stated above - that I was making myself out to be more righteous than God. This realization resulted in my determination to never again follow that line of human reasoning - I stated as much in an oblique way a couple years ago on the FR Free Will threads. I also decided that I needn’t, in fact better not, try to get God off the hook by ascribing to “free will” - at least free will as I understand the concept.

Now I will attempt to steer the discussion to my original purpose, i.e. away from myself, and unto what Luther considered to be the clear teaching of Scripture. Near the end of Bondage, in summarizing, he states “Moreover, since Christ is said to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14.6), and that categorically, so that whatever is not Christ is not the way, but error, not truth, but untruth, not life, but death, it follows of necessity that ‘free-will’, inasmuch as it neither is Christ, nor is in Christ, is fast bound in error, and untruth, and death".

That’s about as strong a statement against free-will as one can make. But what about free-will, what is it? Seems to me the only thing it could possibly mean is that formerly unsaved man will, of his free-will, while in that state of total depravity, chose to reach for the Salvation offered to him by God.

Luther believed the Bible teaches the total depravity of man; that “free-will”, in the context of salvation, would be the working of the will of a totally depraved sinner to come to faith.

On the contrary Luther understands the Scriptures to state clearly that salvation comes only by God’s Grace and the faith by which were are justified is of necessity also from God.

So what does free-will, mean to you?

[Dahlseide]

Thanks for the reply. I'll respond tomorrow - it is way past beddy by for me. Night all.

[razorbak]

"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the Arminian view of the Atonement, yet if it be considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with "and" necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2 :1 from Bagster’s Interlinear: "Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous". It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God’s children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an "Advocate with the Father"; second, that this Advocate is "the propitiation for our sins". Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an "Advocate", for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation ("and") with "the Advocate"!

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of "propitiation," be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Romans 3 :25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in His blood". If Christ is a propitiation "through faith", then He is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17, R. V.).

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.

In Galatians 2 :9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet.1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.

Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows.

(a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes . . . . and our hands have handled". How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!

(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning" (1 John 2 :7). The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ—in proof compare 1:1; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.

(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning" (2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.

(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us" (2:18, 19).

These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins" he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers. [1]

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John’s:



1 John 2:2
John 11:51, 52

"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins".
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that) nation".

"And not for ours only".
"And not for that nation only".

"But also for the whole world"— That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the) earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad".




In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of verse 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world"—Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.

In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5, 6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle’s obvious meaning is that, the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Revelation 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world". But again this expression cannot be understood as a universal one, for Matthew 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God’s elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.

In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Saviour, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11). These are not our words, but the infallible assertion of Him who declares, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 64:10). Upon this impregnable rock we take our stand. Let others rest on the sands of human speculation and twentieth-century theorizing if they wish. That is their business. But to God they will yet have to render an account. For our part we had rather be railed at as a narrow-minded, out-of-date, hyper-Calvinist, than be found repudiating God’s truth by reducing the Divinely-efficacious atonement to a mere fiction.

At the heart of the universalistic understanding of 1 Timothy 2:4 is a misconception concerning the meaning of the word "all" in the passage. The Greek word is paV (pas), and, although its meaning is best approximated by the English word "all", we should never assume that these two words are fully synonymous, but should instead examine the usage of the Greek word in Scripture to determine its allowable range of meanings.

In common English usage, the word "all" often has the idea of universality of individuals. However this is not always its meaning. Sometimes it has a more restricted or more vague meaning, as "all of a certain class", "all sorts of" or "a great variety".

If we should say "All the children left the classroom," we do not mean that every child in all the world had been in the classroom and then left it. Rather, we mean that every child that had just been in that particular classroom left the classroom. The context limits the scope of the word "all", and we are not justifed in presuming any greater extent than is warranted by the context.

A bookstore might advertise, "We sell every book in print." Of course, they don't sell every individual book in print, since many such books are in the libraries of individuals who have already bought them. It is not their intent to suggest that they can sell you any particular individual book, but rather that they can obtain for you a copy of any particular book that is currently in print. No thinking person would ever presume them to mean that they can sell you any individual book that has ever been printed, but only that they can sell you a book of any particular title that is currently available from the publishers. The word "every" or "all" can thus refer to every kind of things, and not necessarily to every individual—where a universality of categories is represented, rather than a universality of individuals.

What is true of the English word "all" is just as true of the Greek word paV (pas). While paV (pas) can certainly denote a universality of individuals, it frequently does not have such a universalistic meaning, denoting instead either...

(1) qualified universality (i.e. all within a prescribed class),
(2) universality of kinds (i.e. some individuals of every kind, but not necessarily every individual of every kind),
(3) a multiplicity of kinds (i.e. some individuals of many kinds, but not necessarily every possible kind represented),
(4) many (a multiplicity of individuals, perhaps all of the same kind, without any thought of universality at all).
We substantiate these claims by offering some examples from Scripture. Please note that the bold blue words below translate the Greek word paV (pas). Even when the English has "every kind of" or "all kinds of" or "all sorts of", there are no additional words in the Greek to supply the idea "kinds of" or "sorts of"—the Greek word paV (pas) alone conveys this meaning. This fact is so well established that the translators of our various English Bibles freely translate paV (pas) as "every kind of", "all kinds of" or "all sorts of", as the context dictates...

Matthew 4:23 - Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. Did Jesus heal every single case of disease in Galilee, or did He heal a great many people, afflicted with a great variety of illnesses? Does "every" here designate unrestricted universality, or simply multiplicity and variety?
Matthew 23:27 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. This passage says that tombs contain all uncleanness. Does that mean that there is no uncleanness outside of tombs? Or, does it perhaps mean that tombs contain every single kind of uncleanness? Aren't there some kinds of uncleanness that cannot be found in tombs? All that the passage means is that there is much uncleanness in tombs.
Acts 2:5 - Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. Did the Jews come from every single nation under heaven? Verses 9-11 tell us the specific nations from which they came. Achaia, Ethiopia, Carthage, Spain and Britain are not mentioned, although they were part of the known world at that time. Certainly China and the Americas are not in view here, even though some might suppose the phrase "every nation under heaven" should necessarily include them.
Acts 7:22 - Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds. Was Moses taught, exhaustively, every single bit of knowledge known to the Egyptians? Or, did he simply receive the sort of rigorous, comprehensive education that every Pharoah's son was expected to receive?
Acts 10:11-14 - and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." If we translate paV as a simple "all", verse 12 would say "...there were in it all four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth..." Did every single individual animal appear in Peter's vision? Was every single kind of animal represented? It should be obvious that there were no cattle or sheep in the sheet, for Peter could find only unclean animals in his vision. Had he found any clean animals, he could readily have obeyed the injunction to "kill and eat" without concern for their uncleanness. One could even argue that there was only one kind of animals in the sheet—unclean animals, although there was evidently a great variety of unclean animals—representative of the various Gentile nations to whom God was now sending His salvation.
Acts 13:10 - and said, "You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? To say that "all" means "all individuals without exception" would mean that every instance of deceit and fraud was to be found in Elymas. However, we know that other men besides Elymas have been guilty of deceit and fraud. Therefore, "all" cannot denote "every single individual instance." Neither does it denote universality of kind, for there were undoubtedly kinds of deceit and fraud which Elymas had never yet imagined, or had never been given opportunity to commit. Clearly, "all" here denotes variety rather than exhaustive universality.
Romans 7:8 - But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. In the same way, all instances of coveting were not to be found in Paul, for some instances are found in other persons besides Paul. Nor did Paul experience every possible kind of coveting. He surely did not know what it was to covet a shiny new automobile, or a high-speed computer. He surely did not experience the kind of covetousness that only a powerful, wealthy king or emperor, like Caesar, could know. But he did experience a tremendous amount and diversity of coveting, which is the most that the word "all" can signify here.
1 Timothy 6:10 - For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. Does every instance of evil result from the love of money as its root cause? Does every case of adultery, jealousy, hatred, disobedience to parents always have the love of money as its cause?

So what can we conclude? When we initially read the statement "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," in English, it superficially sounds as if a universal meaning is intended.

However, once we recognize that the verse could just as validly be translated: "[God] desires all kinds of men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," we find that we are not forced to the idea that God desires the salvation of all men without exception. And, if we are not forced to a universalistic interpretation of the verse, then we are not forced to try to explain how God can have two different wills respecting the salvation of men—that He simultaneously wants all men to be saved, and also wants His elect only to be saved.

Even if Piper can sucessfully manage to talk his way out of this mess, we can still ask whether the logical and hermeneutical contortions are really necessary. If you have to expend such effort to explain away an apparent contradiction resulting from your interpretation of a passage of Scripture, it greatly compromises the credibility of your position. If you cannot give a simple explanation for your position, it is likely to seem contrived. Perhaps in this case the appearance is more than coincidental!

If Piper is concerned about what the Arminian will think of his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4, then he needs to seriously ponder what the Arminian will think of his elaborate attempts to rationalize an Arminian understanding of this passage with his Calvinism. It seems to me that Piper's explanation is likely to confirm the Arminian in his belief that Calvinism is based more upon clever rationalistic arguments than upon clear Scriptural testimony.

If 1 Timothy 2:4 does not require us to believe that God wants every single individual to be saved, then 1 Timothy 2:4 does not require us to concoct an elaborate explanation for how God can will two contrary things at the same time.


Is this a Forced Interpretation of the Verse?

We have demonstrated the feasibility of translating 1 Timothy 2:4 to speak of "all kinds of men" rather than "all men without exception". But how do we know which of the two interpretations is actually the correct one?

1. Consistency with other passages.
One consideration, of course, is its consistency with other clear passages of Scripture (e.g. Mark 13:20; Romans 9:15, 18; Romans 11:4, 7; Galatians 1:15-16; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). If Scripture elsewhere teaches that God has willed the salvation of His elect only, then that consideration alone would seem to disqualify the "all men without exception" interpretation. However, there will always be those who, like Piper, would rather suggest that God has two contradictory purposes, and then attempt to settle the matter by means of elaborate explanations, so we must not suppose that we can rely upon the argument of consistency alone.

2. The Context: Classes of Men.
When we examine the context of 1 Timothy 2:4, we find that the apostle is discussing classes of men. This is true both immediately before and after the verse in question. In verses 1 and 2, he writes of earthly rulers...

1 Timothy 2:1-2 - First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
Notice that, just as in verse 4, he uses the phrase "all men", and that he qualifies it to include "kings and all who are in authority", which designates a particular class of men that we might well have neglected in our prayers if the scriptures had not expressly bid us to pray for them. In other words, he wants us to pray for men of all classes, and not simply those of our own station in life, or those who treat us kindly.
But surely by all men, is not meant every individual man, that has been, is, or shall be, in the world; millions of men are dead and gone, for whom prayer is not to he made; many in hell, to whom it would be of no service; and many in heaven, who stand in no need of it; nor should we pray for such who have sinned the sin unto death (1 John 5:16). ... the phrase is therefore to be taken in a limited and restrained sense, for some only, as appears from verse 2, for kings and for all in authority; that is, for men of the highest, as well as of the lowest rank and quality.[4]
When the apostle bids us pray for "all men", it is evident that he does not mean that we should pray "Heavenly Father, please save every single person in the whole world." Such a prayer would be manifestly contrary to God's revealed will, for He has plainly declared to us that many will be condemned to the flames of hell. Yet, what else could be meant by 1 Timothy 2:1-2 if "all men" must mean "all without exception"? It is utterly impossible that we should pray individually for every single person in the whole world. Even if we could somehow obtain a complete list of them all, a lifetime would be too short a time to pray through the entire list. We conclude, therefore, that the phrase "all men" cannot signify all without exception in verse 1, and thus there is no compelling reason why it should have a universalistic meaning in verse 4.
The apostle's meaning is simply this: We should never assume that a particular man is necessarily reprobate just because he happens to be a king or a ruler. Nor should we presume that prayers for him are pointless or futile. God has chosen people from every station of life—including rulers—unto salvation. Prayers for those in authority are of multiplied benefit, since rulers exercise control over the lives and welfare of their subjects.

Then, in verse 7, he speaks of the Gentiles...

1 Timothy 2:7 - For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Until after the resurrection, the grace of God was largely restricted to the Jewish people, but, by the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, it was being sent to the various Gentile nations as well. This is taught in many passages (Matthew 15:24; 28:19; Acts 10:45; 17:30; Ephesians 2:11-13).
Paul was commissioned to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), and so he was well aware that God had His elect people among the various Gentile nations. God's grace is no longer confined to the Jewish nation alone, but has been extended to all nations of mankind. "All men" therefore expresses a universality of nations, without implying a universality of individuals. God fully intends to save "all kinds of men"—that is, men from every nation of mankind—although assuredly, not every man from every nation.

So then, in verses 1-2, the apostle urges us to pray for a class of men that we are prone to overlook in our prayers, and, in verse 7, the apostle reminds us that he, though himself a Jew, was appointed to take the gospel to men of every nation, tribe and language.

Sandwiched between these two references to certain classes of men, the apostle writes that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Given that the word "all" often (in Greek) has the meaning "all kinds of" or "all sorts of", we conclude that Paul's true meaning, in this context, is that God has willed the salvation of men of every station and nation—even kings and Gentiles are included in His elective decrees.

3. A Parallel Passage.
If such a teaching were unique to this passage of Scripture, we might have reason to question whether this was a valid interpretation of the verse. However, the apostle teaches this very same thing in 1 Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 1:24-26 - but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ... For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
Here, the apostle reminds us that God effectually calls both Jews and Greeks, and that He has called some wise, some mighty and some noble (though not many). Thus, it is profitable to pray for the salvation of all men, for God has chosen men from every nation and class unto salvation. Likewise, we ought diligently to take the gospel to all men, for God has chosen His elect from every country, language and station of life. We should not presume any man to be reprobate simply because he is a king or a nobleman or because he is from a country or class that is noted for its obstinacy and unresponsiveness to the gospel.
4. Calvin's Testimony.
Will some complain that this is merely some bizarre hyper-Calvinistic interpretation of the verse? No one's Calvinism deserves to be called "hyper-Calvinistic" if it agrees with Calvin's position. Here is what Calvin has to say about 1 Timothy 2:4 ...

... Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. ...[5]
Calvin seemed to have been pretty confident that 1 Timothy 2:4 describes classes of men and not individual persons. Shouldn't Calvin's opinion of 1 Timothy 2:4 bear at least as much weight as the Arminian's?
5. Problem: Verse 6 says that Christ gave Himself as a ransom for "all".
Finally, we should note that a universalistic interpretation of verse 4 demands a universalistic understanding of verse 6...

1 Timothy 3:3b-6 - ... God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
If the "all men" whom God wishes to be saved are all men without exception, then what shall we say about the "all" for whom Christ gave Himself as a ransom? What sort of exegetical sleight of hand will be employed to narrow the scope of "all" from one sentence to the next? If context means anything, it ought to mean that "all" in both verses has the same value and extent. The "all men" whom God wishes to be saved must be the "men" for whom Christ Jesus is Mediator, and must therefore be the "all" for whom He gave Himself as a ransom.
We fully acknowledge that Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for men of all nations and all stations of life, whereas we flatly deny that He is a ransom for any individual men who will not ultimately be saved. Scripture is quite clear that Christ died for the elect only...

John 10:11 - I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
John 10:15 - ... I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:26 - ... you are not of My sheep.
Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Romans 8:32-33 - He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

Isaiah 53:11 - He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

If Christ did die for any non-elect person, then that would mean that His suffering for them was unacceptable to the Father—that, in spite of Christ's redemption of that person, the Father still had wrath left to pour out upon the person. Such a teaching nullifies the worth of the cross and destroys the gospel altogether.

Summary.
In summary, then, it is most natural to understand "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean "all classes of men" for the following reasons...

The Greek word translated "all" commonly means "all kinds of" or "all sorts of".
In context, the apostle speaks of particular classes of men: kings and those in authority (vs. 2), and Gentiles (vs. 7).
This teaching (that God has elect people among various classes and nations of men) is echoed in 1 Corinthians 1:24-26.
The continuity with verse 6 demands that "all" refer only to those for whom Christ died.
This is the only interpretation of the verse that is consistent with passages such as Romans 9:18, which says that God has mercy on whomever He desires to have mercy and hardens whomever He desires to harden—that it is not His desire that all men without exception should be saved.
We thus conclude that it is the "universal" interpretation that is strained and unsuitable to the context of the passage. 1 Timothy 2:4 stands as a support for the Arminian view only when it is divorced from its Biblical context and treated as an isolated "proof-text". When it is kept in its scriptural context, it simply teaches that God has chosen men and women from every class and nation of humanity, and provides no evidence whatever for the notion that God possesses a desire that "all men"—i.e. whether elect or not—be saved.

Does God have Two Wills?

Piper claims that God simultaneously wills the salvation of all men and also wills the salvation of His elect only. He attempts to reconcile this apparent contradiction by saying that God has two wills (or "two ways of willing")—a fact that he supports by appealing to theologians of former centuries...

This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For centuries, theologians have distinguished between God's sovereign will and moral will, his efficient will and permissive will, his secret will and revealed will, his will of decree and will of command, his decretive will and preceptive will, and his voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.[6]
Piper is certainly correct in saying that theologians have often distinguished two different "wills" in God. But Piper seems to misunderstand what the theologians intended by God's preceptive will. God's preceptive will is simply that "will" expressed in God's commands, which define man's duty. This is clearly what is intended by such terminology as "moral will", "revealed will", "will of command" and "preceptive will". (Note that a "precept" is simply a "command".)
God commands men "Thou shalt not murder", and yet men do commit murder. The command expresses God's revealed will, i.e. man's duty, teaching us that God forbids murder, and will punish those who commit murder. On the other hand, the fact that men nevertheless disobey this command demonstrates that it is God's sovereign will that men should wilfully disobey His revealed will and thereby incur His wrath.

Arthur Pink makes this point quite clear...

God’s revealed will is the definer of our duty and the standard of our responsibility. The primary and basic reason why I should follow a certain course or do a certain thing is because it is God’s will that I should, His will being clearly defined for me in His Word. That I should not follow a certain course, that I must refrain from doing certain things, is because they are contrary to God’s revealed will.
But suppose I disobey God’s Word, then do I not cross His will? And if so, how can it still be true that God’s will is always done and His counsel accomplished at all times? Such questions should make evident the necessity for the distinction here advocated. God’s revealed will is frequently crost, but His secret will is never thwarted.

That it is legitimate for us to make such a distinction concerning God’s will is clear from Scripture. Take these two passages: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1 Thess. 4:3); "For who hath resisted His will?" (Rom. 9:19). Would any thoughtful reader declare that God’s "will" has precisely the same meaning in both of these passages? We surely hope not. The first passage refers to God’s revealed will, the latter to His secret will. The first passage concerns our duty, the latter declares that God’s secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass notwithstanding the creature’s insubordination. God’s revealed will is never done perfectly or fully by any of us, but His secret will never fails of accomplishment even in the minutest particular.[7]

The statement "God will have all men without exception to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" is not merely a statement of man's duty. Had it been expressed as a command: "God commands all men everywhere to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," we would have no problem with Piper's placing it in the category of God's preceptive will.
However, the statement "God wishes for all men without exception to be saved..." does not say merely what God commands men to do, but indicates in addition, a desire on His part that it should actually occur, and this puts it in direct contradiction to Romans 9:18 ...

Romans 9:18 - So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
It is one thing to say that God commands all men to exhibit evangelical faith and repentance. It is quite another to say that God wishes this for all men, as though, deep in His heart, He has some sort of unrequited yearning that all men should repent and believe. We do not, indeed, cannot believe that our sovereign God is beset by unsatisfied longings and disappointed desires. For Piper to appeal to God's preceptive will to say that God desires the salvation of all men, certainly is a "new contrivance", for none of the theologians of old intended by God's "preceptive will" anything more than God's declared statements of man's duty, or His express design that we should live before Him in holiness and loving submission.
In Desiring God, Piper does a great job of showing us how infinite happiness is to be found in God alone—that, because God is absolutely sovereign, He has the absolute freedom to pursue and achieve all His desires, and that He must, therefore, be the happiest being there is. For example, he writes:

God has the right and power and wisdom to do
whatever makes him happy.

None of his purposes can be frustrated.

Therefore, he is never deficient or needy.
He is never gloomy or discouraged.

He is always full and overflowingly energetic
for the sake of his people
who seek their happiness in him.[8]

However, to suggest that God possesses an actual desire for the salvation of non-elect people is to say that God desires something that will never come to pass, and that would mean that God is not infinitely happy. Instead, it would mean that God is a Being of conflicting desires and contrary passions—as though there were raging within Himself an eternal battle between His desire to show eternal mercy to all men versus His desire to display sovereign mercy to a select portion of mankind.

Piper attempts to argue his case that God has two contrary wills by comparing them to the views one gets by looking through a close-up lens versus a wide-angle lens. If you look at a large Persian rug through a close-up lens, you will see individual fibers of different colors—some dark, others light in color. But if you step back and view the rug from a distance, you will see the intricate design and scintillating colors formed from the mutual contributions of those individual fibers.

While such an analogy may sound profound, Piper does not establish any Biblical basis for it. It is simply unbridled speculation—a desperate attempt to reconcile two teachings that are essentially contradictory and unreconcilable. Such an analogy may be persuasive to the careless or naive student of Scripture, but serious Bible students demand more than creative story-telling to settle matters of doctrine. Where does Scripture invoke the wide-angle lens analogy?

Moreover, this analogy doesn't get Piper out of the jam he has created for himself, for this still means that God has conflicting desires (having "close-up" desires that conflict with His "wide-angle" desires), and thus that He has desires that remain unfulfilled. He cannot be the "infinitely happy" God Piper claims Him to be if He has these unrequited desires that cannot be fulfilled due to His having greater desires that stand in their way.

Despite his claims to the contrary, I frankly believe that Piper is unwittingly engaging in double talk. If he wants to chalk this up to one of those "unsolvable mysteries" that is beyond human comprehension, I think I would have greater respect for his position. The better solution, however, is simply to admit that God does not have a desire for the salvation of the non-elect, even though He does, with great kindness and patience, command and invite them to repent and believe in Christ.

How, then, should we think of the two wills of God?

To properly understand the two wills of God, we need to think of them in this way:

(1) God's preceptive will is primarily His concern for righteousness—His love for His eternal Law, and His hatred of sin—and is only secondarily concerned with the benefit that comes to men who pursue righteousness. This is why He calls upon sinners to repent of their sins and threatens them with His wrath if they persist in their rebellion. God's preceptive will is not primarily a love for men, but a love for holiness and justice.
(2) God's decretive will encompasses all that will ever come to pass, but it includes in particular His desire to glorify Himself by showing mercy and grace to those rebellious, hell-deserving sinners whom He has chosen to receive it. It is in God's decretive will (i.e. His sovereign will) that we find His great love displayed in the salvation of sinners.

It is in the sacrifice of Christ that these two wills are reconciled, so that God can thereby fulfill His decretive will, showing mercy to certain wretched sinners, without doing violence to His preceptive will, that demands justice and satisfaction.
Romans 3:24-26 - being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We should further observe that there is a qualitative difference between these two "wills" of God. They differ not merely in degree, as if to say that both wills are comparable, and of the same type and character, but that God's sovereign will is simply a greater desire, and that it therefore overrules God's preceptive will. On the contrary, there is a very real sense in which God's sovereign will is always subject to His preceptive will, and is constantly at work to achieve the dictates of His preceptive will.

This may seem surprising, but consider this: God's preceptive will is nothing more than an expression of His righteousness and justice—that men ought to love and obey God, and that they deserve condemnation if they fail to do so. God's sovereign will is working toward that final day in which His justice and righteousness will be fully satisfied with regard to all men. Those who never bowed the knee to His sovereign authority will be cast into eternal hell-fire, to the praise of His glorious justice. Those whom He has elected, redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified will be welcomed into eternal bliss, to the praise of His glorious justice (satisfied at Calvary), and to the praise of His wondrous compassion, mercy and grace!

On that momentous day, God's sovereign, decretive purpose will finally right all wrongs and will usher in eternal righteousness—fully satisfying His preceptive will. His desire that all men obey Him will be fully realized with respect to the entire creation—for His elect will render full and perfect obedience to God's commands—and all the reprobate will be fully receiving the reward that their sinful rebelliousness deserves.



Does God take Pleasure in 'The Death of the Wicked'?

But what about the passages from Ezekiel? Piper feels that these three passages essentially prove that God desires the salvation of all men without exception...

Ezekiel 18:23 - "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"
Ezekiel 18:32 - "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

Ezekiel 33:11 - "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'

These passages cannot be speaking of God's sovereign, decretive will, since there are many sinners who never repent of their sin. Thus, these passages are clear examples of God's preceptive will—His will of command.
God's preceptive will desires that men should willingly glorify Him in their thoughts and actions, and that they should repent of sin and practice righteousness. It is analogous to the legal system of a country. A country's system of laws and punishments is designed to ensure a peaceful and orderly society. It threatens offenders with punishment, and delivers the punishment when necessary. However the main purpose of the legal system is not to inflict punishment on anyone, but rather to ensure a peaceful and orderly society. The legal system is satisfied either way: either by the willful obedience of its citizens, or by visiting punishment on offenders. However, the design and intent of this system is for the overall welfare of the country—as a place where men may safely live in obedience to its laws.

So it is with God's government. As far as God's preceptive will is concerned, God's justice is equally satisfied with our obedience, or with visiting judgment upon the wicked. Even so, given the choice between a man's obedience and disobedience, God's preceptive will would prefer to have the man obey, and to have judgment averted. God's preceptive will does not seek to visit punishment without reason or provocation. Moreover, God is longsuffering toward sinners, inviting them to repent and live. But, once provoked to wrath, God's justice (and His preceptive will) is perfectly satisfied by the outpouring of that wrath upon them.

God, in His sovereign, decretive will, sometimes wills that sinners should, of their own will, violate His preceptive will and incur His wrath. No violence is done to His justice, since the sinner receives the wrath he deserves, and thus no violence is done to His preceptive will, which is merely an expression of His justice and love for righteousness.


Does this Interpretation Kill Evangelistic Zeal?

Underlying all the quasi-Calvinistic objections to the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 is the fear that Christians will not be adequately motivated to evangelize the lost unless they believe that God, at heart, wants all men to be saved. Like it or not, this is an Arminian pardigm for evangelism, and it is as false as any of the other errors of Arminianism.

There are perhaps a couple of reasons for this fear:

First, everyone has heard of the dread "Hyper-Calvinist"— an arrogant monster who has no concern for the lost, and no great incentive for evangelism or missions. There is a certain fear of anything that looks remotely like it might lead to Hyper-Calvinism. There is probably also a fear of being branded a "Hyper-Calvinist", although there is no doubt that this epithet has been hurled against even the most moderate of Calvinists by various inflammatory Arminians who view every form of Calvinism as extremism.

It should be recognized that Hyper-Calvinism is more a spiritual problem than a purely doctrinal one. The true Hyper-Calvinist is one who confuses theological advancement with spirituality and sees no need for Christian service or personal sacrifice. It was for this reason that Spurgeon often associated Hyper-Calvinism with antinomianism. The true Hyper-Calvinist is a pride filled, ivory tower intellectual who has no time for mercy, kindness, compassion and true personal holiness—much less for witnessing and missions.

While we need to carefully avoid the errors of the Hyper-Calvinist, we also need to avoid swinging to the other extreme, needlessly embracing Arminian ideas about evangelism or universalistic interpretations that ultimately compromise our witness of the sovereignty of God. To avoid Hyper-Calvinism does not require that we make compromises with Arminianism.

Second, there is a glaring lack of insight as to what should constitute genuine Calvinistic evangelism. Most Calvinists learned their evangelism as Arminians, and wrongly suppose that the Arminian way is the Biblical way. Of course, there are certain gross Arminian errors that most Calvinists have learned to reject— for example, it is wrong to tell the unbeliever that "Christ died for your sins," since Scripture is clear that Christ died for the elect only, and we have no business telling an unsaved man (whom we don't know to be elect) that Christ died for his sins in particular.

For this reason, it is equally wrong to tell the unsaved that God loves them—unless we carefully qualify this to mean simply that God, in kindness, provides for their basic needs in this life, and is longsuffering to them, giving them opportunity to repent of their sins and come to Christ for salvation. We should never give the unsaved the idea that God loves them savingly or redemptively—for that would imply that He gave Christ to die in vain for the sins of the non-elect, or that He is powerless to save those He wishes to save.

How then should we think of evangelism, and what should be the motive that drives us to take the gospel to the lost?

1. Our primary objective should be to make God's glory known to men. The gospel is first and foremost a declaration of the glory and majesty of God. Our motivation for this should not be a futile desire to see all men saved, but rather a great delight in the majesty of God, and a burning desire that His glory should be made known to all the world.
2. Our second objective should be to see God's elect come to faith in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10). The gospel is clearly instrumental in bringing the elect to faith in Christ. This is the plain teaching of Romans 10:14-15 and other passages.

3. Our third objective is to be exceedingly kind, compassionate and gracious in giving a clear, honest, complete presentation of the gospel so that the non-elect are left without excuse for rejecting it, while the elect are lovingly drawn to believe it. So also, our lives should adorn the gospel with great godliness, goodness and humility.

4. In all our evangelism, we should have the absolute confidence that faithful evangelism is always successful—bringing about the very purpose which God has ordained for it in any circumstance. In some cases, He uses it to call His elect unto faith in Christ, and we rejoice to see them fall at the Savior's feet in loving contrition. In other cases, He demonstrates the hardness of the hearts of the reprobate—proving them all the more to be deserving of the judgment that awaits them. Either way, evangelism glorifies our majestic God.

We should remember that we do not know what God has purposed for any particular unbeliever, and so we cannot presume any man to be non-elect. We have no business picking and choosing those whom we suppose are elect unbelievers. God does not tell us to preach to the elect only, but to all men indiscriminately. It is His business to distinguish the elect from the non-elect, giving faith to one and withholding it from the other. Our duty is simply, with great zeal, urgency, compassion and kindness, to warn all men of the judgment to come, and lovingly to invite those who are burdened by their sin to come to Christ for forgiveness and cleansing.
My article, A More Excellent Way, offers a more in-depth study of the Calvinistic approach to evangelism.


Conclusion.

The Arminian position cites 1 Timothy 2:4 as a cliché—a proof-text divorced from its Biblical and linguistic context—that packs a lot of emotional appeal to those who love to think that God's sovereignty is a mere fiction, and that man's "free-will" is all-important. It is therefore extremely disappointing that a Calvinistic author of John Piper's stature should lend any credence or support to such a patently faulty interpretation of the passage.

In context, Paul writes of various classes of men—kings, and those in authority (verses 1-2), as well as those of various Gentile nations (verse 7)—to say that God desires that "all men"—that is, men of all classes and nations—should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. To this end, Christ is the sole Mediator between God and men, who gave Himself a ransom for all—not for all individual men, but for men of all classes and nations.

This is the clear meaning of the passage, and there is therefore no reason to argue that God, in some sense, desires the salvation of all men without exception, nor to try to subsume such a desire under God's preceptive will. There is likewise no necessity to concoct elaborate, speculative explanations to attempt to reconcile this universalistic desire with God's plainly-revealed desire to save His elect only.

1 Timothy 2:4 teaches us that God has elect people in every station of mankind, and in every country of the globe. Even if He did not, we should still be obliged and eager to proclaim the gospel to all men without exception. But 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches us that we should never presume any class or nation of mankind to be excluded from salvation. Even though God has not willed to save all without exception, still, He has not revealed to us which ones He will save, and so we proclaim the gospel to all alike—joyously proclaiming God's glories, fearfully warning of His impending wrath, and kindly inviting to Christ all those who sense the misery of their sin. 1 Timothy 2:4 gives us full confidence that God will bring forth His elect from every category of mankind.

Perhaps the one passage which has presented the greatest difficulty to those who have seen that passage after passage in Holy Writ plainly teaches the election of a limited number unto salvation is 2 Peter 3:9: "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

The first thing to be said upon the above passage is that, like all other scripture, it must be understood and interpreted in the light of its context. What we have quoted in the preceding paragraph is only part of the verse, and the last part of it at that! Surely it must be allowed by all that the first half of the verse needs to be taken into consideration. In order to establish what these words are supposed by many to mean, viz., that the words "any" and "all" are to be received without any qualification, it must be shown that the context is referring to the whole human race! If this cannot be shown, if there is no premise to justify this, then the conclusion also must be unwarranted. Let us then ponder the first part of the verse.

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Note "promise" in the singular number, not "promises." What promise is in view? The promise of salvation? Where, in all Scripture, has God ever promised to save the whole human race!! Where indeed? No, the "promise" here referred to is not about salvation. What then is it? The context tells us.

"Knowing this, first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?" (vv. 3,4). The context then refers to God’s promise to send back His beloved Son. But many long centuries have passed, and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. True, but long as the delay may seem to us, the interval is short in the reckoning of God. As the proof of this we are reminded, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (v. 8). In God’s reckoning of time, less than two days have yet passed since He promised to send back Christ.

But more, the delay in the Father sending back His beloved Son is not only due to no "slackness" on His part, but it is also occasioned by His "longsuffering". His long-suffering to whom? The verse we are now considering tells us: "but is longsuffering to usward". And whom are the "usward"?—the human race, or God’s own people? In the light of the context this is not an open question upon which each of us is free to form an opinion. The Holy Spirit has defined it. The opening verse of the chapter says, "This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you". And, again, the verse immediately preceding declares, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing etc.," (v. 8). The "usward" then are the "beloved" of God. They to whom this Epistle is addressed are "them that have obtained (not "exercised", but "obtained" as God’s sovereign gift) like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11). Therefore we say there is no room for a doubt, a quibble or an argument—the "usward" are the elect of God.

Let us now quote the verse as a whole: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Could anything be clearer? The "any" that God is not willing should perish, are the "usward" to whom God is "longsuffering", the "beloved" of the previous verses. 2 Peter 3:9 means, then, that God will not send back His Son until "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25). God will not send back Christ till that "people" whom He is now "taking out of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:14) are gathered in. God will not send back His Son till the Body of Christ is complete, and that will not be till the ones whom He has elected to be saved in this dispensation shall have been brought to Him. Thank God for His "longsuffering to us-ward". Had Christ come back twenty years ago the writer had been left behind to perish in His sins. But that could not be, so God graciously delayed the Second Coming. For the same reason He is still delaying His Advent. His decreed purpose is that all His elect will come to repentance, and repent they shall. The present interval of grace will not end until the last of the "other sheep" of John 10:16 are safely folded,—then will Christ return.

[MHGinTN]

To be able to intentionally bow the will before the Truth of God, to repudiate self-will to receive the gift of Grace, the one bowing would have to have free will to not bow else the one bowing is an automaton of just/under more complex direction. I personally feel the scriptures, from Genesis to The Revelation, illustrate this tension in the human soul/spirit, the tension between 'I can be good enough' and 'I'm flawed too much to dwell with God unless one from God save me from my prideful state.' Perhaps a careful word study of the progression in Romans would help, the one where Paul speaks of 'chosen and saved, to them gave He ...' I seem to remember having this same conversation with more than one Christian searching for the solution to their wanting to hold on to behaviors they took great secret pleasure in, while struggling with the indwelling presence of God's Spirit whispering to them to let go and let God lead them to a better life.

'Many are called, but few are chosen' ... 'Faithful is He that calleth you, for He will also do it'. Of the many who are called, why are so few chosen? ... Because so few will let Him 'do it', do the saving, apply His Grace to the doomed-by-self-direction human soul/spirit.

The abilities to reject Salvation or accept Salvation are juxtaposed throughout scripture. To infer that some extremely complex reality (that precludes actual choice and places the onus upon the Creator) is the correct way to view Salvation and free will is usually a sign of a soul/spirit still in rebellion to bowing the soul before the Truth of God in Christ reconciling the world. That's why I used the term 'schizophrenic'. I like to refer to such folks as still pouring over the Grace contract, looking for the tiniest exception clause that will allow them to hold back something they do not wish to present to their Savior for His cleansing Grace ... the tiniest bit of leven, don'tcha know. Could it be that that is why the example of the thief upon the cross next to Jesus was given to us? Such a 'nailed' man (as the thief) isn't going to have opportunity to partake of some favored behavior he might have wanted to keep secret (as if we could keep a secret from God!), thus he is completely trusting in Jesus, and the Lord tells him that that very day he will be with Him in Paradise. The simpler analogy is the 'wedding guest' garment thingy ... no soiled apparel will be allowed into the wedding party or the reception that follows the wedding. The Master of the Wedding provides the acceptable garment or the attendee is rejected. To have the choice to wear a soiled garment and be rejected is necessary in juxtaposition else the whole lesson is a sham of tricky puppeteering.

[MHGinTN]

Ping ... thought you might enjoy this thread.

[Dahlseide]

To be able to intentionally bow the will before the Truth of God, to repudiate self-will to receive the gift of Grace, the one bowing would have to have free will to not bow else the one bowing is an automaton of just/under more complex direction.

The self-will you speak of is, unless you correct me, your understanding of free-will Good! at least now I think I know that what I presumed to be the normal meaning of free-will is correct, i.e. my self-will, the same will I had in my totally depraved state.

Clearly my reply is from me and not God's Scripture. I ‘d chose robot/automation/what-have-you rather than free-will which would result in my attaining the damnation, which according to Scripture I deserve, all the while readily admitting that God, Who truly has free-will, could have, but I think by Scripture did not, make me depend on my own free (read self-)-will.

However no less than Luther, whom I can’t seem to draw into this thread (why?), in Bondage expressed the same thought. So I take some assurance from Bondage that my reply is not to "off the wall". In Bondage Luther states, "I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assualts from devils, I could not not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteouness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. 'No one' He says, 'shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all' (John 10:28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of 'free-will' none at all could be saved, but everyone of us would perish"

the tension between 'I can be good enough' and 'I'm flawed too much to dwell with God unless one from God save me from my prideful state.'

I am at a total loss as to where you would get tension between 'I can be good enough' and 'I'm flawed too much to dwell with God unless one from God save me from my prideful state.' There is absolutely NO tension, the former is anathema to the later with the glaring exception that too much implies that just a little might be OK.

[MHGinTN]

I am at a total loss as to where you would get tension between ... Posted by Dahlseide I'm not surprised that you cannot fathom that tension; to acknowledge in your heart that such a tension is precursor to bowing the self to the Saving Grace of Christ, is to see what it is that stands between the self-willed sinner and the Grace of new life in Him. Some cannot afford to be so open within because they fret over losing control over self, losing the central importance of self in order to be born again. Many intellectuals suffer from this ability to be ever learning but never coming to the knowledge ...

[Dahlseide]

I had intended to reply but now that I have read #25 I heartily recommend it to you. If you & I were debating I would admit the referral would be a “cop out” on my part.

I objected to your, probably to me only, rather crude description of God's response. I did not object to the question. The question could have come from a believer or un-believer. But the answer if there were one, would have been, at least in the very general/usual case inaudible.

What does the blue apple signify?

[William Terrell]

Post # 25 is 10,008 words long.

Many years ago, I chose to follow my Lord and His commandments, recomendations and teachings. Since then I have made countless choices to remain consistant with that choice. Either my choice(s) and commitment is/are meaningless, regardless of what it cost me because it was ordained, or it is likewise meaningless because it was not ordained and salvation is denied me.

I might as well believe in macro-evolution.

Blue apple? No such thing as a blue apple.

[MHGinTN]

So, there are still rascals in Ohio! Blue Apple? What blue apple?

[Dahlseide]

... places the onus upon the Creator ...

Personally I think you have hit on the reason, at least in recent times, for what I believe is the need of some to (yes)invent "free-will". Some think they need to get God off the hook for his work in Creation as an explanation for sin in order to believe in a just/loving/all-powerful God. One of the main works of faith is to believe God in the face of so much or so little sin. Inventing "free-will" negates the need for faith in that respect.

".... looking for the tiniest exception clause ..."

An excellent description of coming again under the law through the merit of “free-will”. As you know the law does not provide for even the tiniest exception.

God gives Grace & Faith to whomever He choses, i.e. Grace that taught my heart to fear & grace my fear relieved”.

Page 311 of my copy of Bondage (are we ever going to discuss Bondage on this thread?)With regard to John 6.44, “… the Father Himself speaks within and teaches, and draws. ‘No man, no man can come,” …… ‘Free-will’ is not helped by what Diatribe quotes from Augustine in an attempt to discredit this plain and powerful Scripture: that is, the statement that ‘God draws us as we draw sheep, by holding out a branch to them (bold not in the text)’ (cf. Augustine Trac in Joannis ev., 26.5).

If you are not saying that your “free-will” has reached out to receive God’s Grace what are you saying?

[MHGinTN]

Simply, that God has given unto humankind the free will to choose the next stage in our eternal life, to be in His family or outcast from same. It is not free will to choose if there is a predetermined course you may not divert from. Once you choose, His Spirit works continuously within your Human spirit to purify that which He has chosen to save.

Back around Christmas, the issue of whether Mary had a free choice to accept or reject the 'over shadowing' of the Holy Spirit, to be the Mother of Jesus or not to be the Mother of Jesus, before she became the life support for Jesus. These same issues of what free will means were hashed and rehashed then ... and I still believe with all my heart that God gave Mary a choice, that He indeed saw the inward parts and could 'predict' how she would choose, so He offered the great honor to her, but He didn't offer because He intended that she have no right of refusal, that would be rape. She did have such a right to refuse and that makes her beauty even the more brilliant in His Grace.

[Dahlseide]

I am at a total loss as to where you would get tension between ... Posted by Dahlseide I'm not surprised that you cannot fathom that tension; to acknowledge in your heart that such a tension is precursor to bowing the self to the Saving Grace of Christ, is to see what it is that stands between the self-willed sinner and the Grace of new life in Him. Some cannot afford to be so open within because they fret over losing control over self, losing the central importance of self in order to be born again. Many intellectuals suffer from this ability to be ever learning but never coming to the knowledge ...

If possible would you point out something I said that would cause you to say "... I'm not surprised ..."? I was, and am, at a total loss because you referred to "trying to please God". Here I took that to mean "following the law as the way to be acceptable in God's sight, that is, as you stated, please God". Had you referred in some way to a battle between the still lingering results of my old Adamic nature (i.e. a will in bondage to sin) and my new Nature (freed from that bondage resulting from being born again through the working of God's Grace) I would not have been at a total loss over the so stated tension; on the contrary, I would have been in total agreement.

Is there anyway we can ever get around to discussing even just the preface to Bondage that was the subject of #1?

In the preface Packer & Johnston state "Why did Erasmus & Luther approach the discussion of 'free-will' in such contrasting attitudes of mind? ...... Erasmus held that matters of doctrine were all comparatively unimportant, and that the issue as to whether a man's will was or was not free was more unimportant than most. Luther on the other hand, held that doctrines were essential to, and constitutive of, Christian religion, and that the doctrine of the bondage of the will in particular was the corner-stone of the gospel and the very foundation of faith...."

[watchin]

I'll agree that things are more complicated than we can see from this side.

I'll agree that the Bible includes both passages that say we are called, chosen, and drawn - as well as passages (far, far greater in number) that urge us to make the right choice.

I don't agree that the innumerable calls to salvation are just part of an illusory free will, while in truth we're forced into heaven or hell. I just can't see that the overall message of the Bible allows for that.

[watchin]

“Moreover, since Christ is said to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14.6), and that categorically, so that whatever is not Christ is not the way, but error, not truth, but untruth, not life, but death, it follows of necessity that ‘free-will’, inasmuch as it neither is Christ, nor is in Christ, is fast bound in error, and untruth, and death".

This is the kind of foolish rambling one gets into when overreacting to the doctrines of others.

Under the Roman Catholic church, the pendulum had swung far to the side of earning salvation. Luther (and Calvin) were, unfortunately, more interested in swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme - in being anticatholics - than in being scriptural.

Luther is reaching in the passage cited. Had the argument been about the teachings of James, or Paul, about music, or even about breathing, the same silly argument could have been made. It's childish.

“Moreover, since Christ is said to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14.6), and that categorically, so that whatever is not Christ is not the way, but error, not truth, but untruth, not life, but death, it follows of necessity that ‘music’, inasmuch as it neither is Christ, nor is in Christ, is fast bound in error, and untruth, and death".

[watchin]

If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family.

FR is the place where we discuss these things. And not only us, but the whole world.

[rwfromkansas]

It's called theology...which is not pointless.

[rwfromkansas]

Remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave.....what is seen is not always what is real. Just because it looks like there is free will does not mean an overruling Providence does not exist.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ah, but the lack of free will argues predestination. That means we have no free choice but will go to pre determined rewards regardless of what we do.

While I will be the first to accept the fact that without Christ, everything else is vain, I will also be the first to admit that without making a conscious choice to accept Christ's sacrifice (and obey his commandments) all is also in vain.

[watchin]

Either my choice(s) and commitment is/are meaningless, regardless of what it cost me because it was ordained, or it is likewise meaningless because it was not ordained and salvation is denied me.

I think you've got it, in a nutshell. The next lesson in our "denial of man's will" series is on eternal security, where you learn you can never lose the salvation you may or may not have.

[watchin]

Luther on the other hand, held that doctrines were essential to, and constitutive of, Christian religion

While proper doctrine is important, we must watch that we don't put the cart before the horse. Let me give an example:

Satan knew that Jesus was God incarnate, yet it did him no good to believe it. On the other hand, anyone who claims to know Christ, yet can deny His deity, cannot really know Him.Doctrine follows, and is the natural outgrowth of, proper relationship with Christ.

Proper doctrine does not a Christian make, or the devil himself would be saved. Relying on doctrine makes one a gnostic, not a Christian. Doctrine did not die on that cross, Christ did.

[watchin]

Ah, but that's not what I said, is it?

Theology itself is surely not pointless.

Some theologies are, because of the "reality" they describe, pointless.

Take a look at William Terrell's post #31 to see what I meant.

[watchin]

These passages cannot be speaking of God's sovereign, decretive will, since there are many sinners who never repent of their sin.

Thank you for a fine example of using doctrine to interpret scripture, rather than the other way around.

The passages declare that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked and wants all men to repent. Yet not all sinners repent. Since this is a square peg in your round doctrine, it must mean something else.

What regularly follows this sort of determination is known scripturally as "the foolishness of man." You may call it "theology" if you'd like, but making distinctions between God's preceptive and decretive wills, or arguing endlessly over supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism is right up there with arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[watchin]

"...to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

I've not read your whole, long post, but apparently you're counting on wordiness to win the day, rather than scripture or logic. Each point I read seems sillier and more childish than the one preceding it.

No one has suggested that Christ died for all, but then arbitrarily tosses some to hell. But if making God out to be arbitrary dishonors Him, then what is the point of your post? Are not God's sovereignty and arbitrariness central to your theology? Away with such a God-dishonoring thoughts!

Just in case you're sincere about the point you're trying to make here, let me clear things up a bit. The idea is that Christ died for the sins of the world, as Scripture states. Provision is now made for any who would repent and believe - "whosoever" - as the Bible states.

The idea that this constitutes "works" was somewhat understandable in Luther's day, since he was reacting so strongly against the abuses of Catholicism, but I think we're safe with just following scripture today.

[razorbak]

You argue against the biblical Doctrines of Grace as vehemently as I once did, before the Spirit through the Scripture opened my eyes.

[William Terrell]

I can see free will with an overruling Providence if time is expressed in the material "realm" as sequential moments, but as a completed whole outside the material "realm". Seem outside, all of what was done has been done and all choices made. Seem inside, each choice, major or minor, comes in a moment and is made in another, working out the process of bringing the whole into being.

Of course, while the whole of the events in the world, brought by major or minor choices, is being built, free will is indeed free. Only when the completed whole is seen outside are events "pre"determined.

[watchin]

... biblical Doctrines of Grace

Simply asserting it doesn't make it so.

... the Spirit through the Scripture opened my eyes.

Same here. Unable to really support your argument with scripture or logic, you're reduced to "God told me I'm right". Okay, if you say so.

[Dahlseide]

I do not know of a single soul who has ever been told of the gospel in terms such as "you might be of the elect, if you are then here is some good news....".

I take for granted that every person, I include you as well as myself, who has, to continue the metaphor, crossed to the other side has been greeted by the astounding revelation that they were chosen from the foundation. Oh my gosh!, it was by God's Grace imparting Faith to my soul. I fail to understand what is so difficult to comphrehend about that? That question is not a jibe.

I am going to press on for more:

Furthermore if salvation from hell has any meaning at all, there is no crossing back to the other (read Graceless/Faithless) side.

And more:

There is much more!!!!