John Piper has a new book, really short at 64 pages, “Does God Desire All To Be Saved?”
Has anybody looked at this? I haven’t finished it yet, gotten maybe to page 20. Piper states in the first paragraph:
*My aim in this short book is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for all people to be saved and his will to choose some people for salvation unconditionally before creation is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people and does not rule out sincere offers of salvation to all who are lost among the peoples of the world. *
Piper also states that God’s “two wills” may be logically unnecessary, but Scripturally “inescapable”.
One of the more interesting arguments I encountered in the early pages is that, in Piper’s opinion, that is wrong for non-Calvinists to accuse Calvinists/Reformed theologians uniquely as affirming that God even wills evil. To this end, he cites J. Edwards regarding Arminians (and by implication free-will universalists), that since, in that (those) theologies, God allows human agency to sin, He is also transitively causing sin.
Anybody familiar with this book and have read it or have comments? If not, what do you think of his thesis and/or this argument? I’ll add Piper’s arguments and exegeses as I get farther in the book.
Wow! I’ll leave this one to some of the others who like to discuss Calvinism, but I wanted to say that. (And roll my eyes.) Someone has been drinking too much Kool-Aid, imo. Either that or he’s a LOT smarter than me (which he probably is) and is just leaving me in the dust. What he said there . . . does that even say anything at all?
BTW, one of those little pet peeves . . . schizophrenia is a psychosis involving hallucinations/delusions, but people always use it for multiple personality disorder (which is a dissociative neurosis). Of course it doesn’t sound nearly as cool to say that God isn’t neurotic – and what’s worse, you don’t get to show off your spelling skills quite so magnificently.
I was going to say it was the worst £2.97 I’ve ever spent, but that’s not strictly true. If nothing else, Piper’s book is a useful primer on the illogicality and wilful duplicity on which Calvinism is predicated.
Piper’s arguments are shopworn and threadbare. First he wheels out that old chestnut about all not really meaning all, rather “all kinds of”. In other words, when Paul says in 1 Timothy 2 that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, he isn’t referring to all individual humans, but only to all types or kinds of people - so God wants some French people, some lawyers, some pole dancers etc to be saved. That argument came out of the ark. Noah got it second hand. It stinketh. Nuff said. Although it’s quite obvious that JP thinks it’s actually correct, but he doesn’t press it because he knows the average reader will give it the big razzoo and throw the book immediately into the bin where it belongs.
Secondly and lastly (it’s a short book), he wheels out the equally geriatric three-card-trick about God having two wills - his secret will and his revealed will. (There are other terms for this ludicrous bit of exegetical sleight of hand (decretive will and preceptive will etc), but I like the bare-faced effrontery of this Calvinist assertion that God says one thing in public and another thing in private, so to speak.) God’s revealed will is that all people should be saved, but his secret will is that some of them actually shouldn’t. And his secret will trumps his revealed will, because it manifests his glory more to save only some people and leave the rest to burn forever than it does to save all people. Go figure.
That’s it. That’s all Piper has up his theological conjuror’s sleeve. That and some of the most egregiously selective prooftexting I’ve seen in a long time. The introduction is emetically pompous, and patronising to boot. In plain English, it says “I know a lot of you good folk out there will think that what I say here is a load of old cobblers, but that’s because you’re not as clever as me, and haven’t read the Bible good like I have”.
Well folks, don’t believe a word of it. Cobblers this book is, from soup to nuts .
I am not a fan of Piper, nor did I find his reasoning to be ultimately convincing in the book. Yet, I think that he makes some interesting points:
At some point, any theology will have to assign evil to God. (Though Piper seemed to address the book more to free-will Arminians than universalists, his pt would still affect universalists). That is, the evil in the world must ultimately stem from God’s decree. For instance, on a “free will” theology, God has made the decision to allow whatever evil that brings for the sake of human freedom. I think Piper would say to universalism that God still willed evil in the sense that God decided either to allow free-will (if you are more of an Arminian universalist) or to determine that we go through this veil of tears first (Cal universalism) before giving us Heaven. I think this is significant b/c we typically think of Calvinists alone as arguing that God predestines evil.
As Protestants, we should affirm Scripture b4 trying to smooth it with theology. Though the two wills is probably illogical and potentially or certainly immoral (as Johnny argued), I think Piper has a point and we don’t have to be Calvinists necessarily to appreciate it. When theology tries to smooth Scripture, we might be giving Scripture the lie. I don’t know if universalists, or Piper for that matter (after all, he has chosen a side), are always happy to let the Bible speak for itself. Our atheist and agnostic brothers-and-sisters are much better at seeing these tensions, though they also err by dismissing, instead of trying to harmonize, the Bible on those grounds.
Obviously, I doubt anybody here will think that the Bible equally affirms that God has a reprobating will alongside his salvific will as Piper has found. Yet, in other ways, I think he is holding the convictions of Protestantism. Universalists concede the tension in the Bible; yet, we conclude that ultimately God’s salvific will trump God’s wrath, though at least I think we have to admit that it is odd, if the Bible is in any way inspired by God, that God would let the Word be confusing to the point many theological construals of it seem viable, especially if only one of these construals is the correct one.
Perhaps a question is, given Piper’s argument (not necessarily his Calvinist conclusion) that Scripture bears out multiple wills for God: is it possible to be a dogmatic universalist and still be a Protestant (sola Scriptura)? It would seem that Talbott’s Triad affirms yes but should this be a hopeful or probable conclusion based on Scripture or a dogmatic one? It might also be argued, given this triad (though Cindy might have to help me for I apparently misunderstood it b4 ) that universalism, though certainly no less probable than the other theologies, is no more probable, for it seems to be an argument primarily to show that it is wrong for Cals and Arms to dismiss Univ. as heresy due to Scriptural tension, as opposed to an argument demonstrating the superior scriptural weight of universalism to Cal and Arm. That being said, I don’t think, again, that Piper himself is practicing what is preaching as he is a dogmatic (as opposed to a “hopeful”, grant the oxymoron here, Calvinist, “hopeful” meaning tentative given the tension in Scripture) Calvinist, but I think he argument re scriptural tension being “inescapable” is interesting nonetheless.**
That’s okay, Myshkin – you’re not a patch on Dick (Sobornost) when he’s in a hurry. He can come up with some very creative spelling & etc.
You mention the tension in scripture and that’s one reason I think Talbot’s triad is so compelling. Before I (somewhat suddenly) became a universalist I had resolved myself to simply living with the massive tensions in scripture. But now, the tension has somehow seeped away. Where did it go? How did that happen? The Calvs are right and so are the Arms. The only thing that has to go is a couple of badly translated words, a pile of extra-biblical assumptions, and the death deadline – which, as it turns out, was never scriptural to begin with. The bible now makes sense to me, and it happened so quickly. I have to say I’m amazed at how beautifully Katholicisim (as Jason might call it) has pulled the written word together for me. I just wasn’t looking at it right. I couldn’t see it.
Cindy: it is illusory to think one can eliminate the contradictions in the Bible in this way.
As I argued, Evangelicals can only uphold the dogma of Biblical inerrancy by picking and choosing which parts to believe and which parts to utterly distort.
My interview with Chris Date clearly showed that there are many Biblical passages teaching the complete destruction of the wicked.
And we cannot ignore the fact that there is really heinous stuff in the Bible, such as God ordering soldiers to kill babies and small children (along other atrocities).
We should be honest with the Biblical text and recognize the presence of evil things promoted by some of the authors.
I think that a more reasonable claim is that Paul was an universalist and was both a determinist and a believer in universal love.
The Synoptic Jesus was most likely not since he warned the pharisees that an unquenchable fire will consume them.
"We should be honest with the Biblical text and recognize the presence of evil things promoted by some of the authors. "
By some of the AUTHORS - not by God, right? - or ARE you accusing God of atrocities?
I think others ARE HONEST - as honest as you, Lotharson, believe it or not - and still disagree with you.
edit: Ach, I sounded harsh, because I felt attacked. I’m sorry for the tone; not for the disagreement, but for being snarky.
When you say ‘we should be honest’ you are implying that your audience is NOT honest. And that just is not true, ok?
You throw out some heavy punches, mis-guided imo, and the temptation is to throw heavy punches back. But then nothing is accomplished.
Piper - following Jonathan Edwards - is simply wrong to assert that at some point any theology will have to assign evil to God. As we have discussed at great length on other threads, God’s permitting evil to be is not the same thing as his willing it to be.
In the book, Piper tries to dismiss the Arminian argument against limited election by claiming it is based on an extra-Scriptural philosophical presupposition against God having two conflicting wills. Quite apart from this being a load of bull, it is pretty rich coming from somebody whose entire theological system is predicated on a huge, unprovable philosophical supposition, ie that the Bible is inerrant.
The above point notwithstanding, Piper bends over backwards to be accommodating to Arminians, even though their theology openly and directly contradicts Reformed theology, as we all know. But he doesn’t, even in passing, give any consideration to whether the way to resolve the apparent soteriologic tensions in the Bible might be to accept Universalism - which at least gives due weight to some of Calvinism’s fundamental tenets. Why? Because of his philosophical presupposition against Universalism! Like Cindy says, this supposed tension simply melts away under Universalism.
Without getting into what inerrancy should mean (in terms of narrative and the primarily oral culture the Biblical texts developed through, and just what the authority of the oral witness was to the original audiences and what the authority of Scripture means, since all authority is with God etc) and how evangelicals should rightfully adjust many views on that in light of better scholarly and historical understanding, the same error should not be committed from the other end either. I fully accept the development of Scripture in the OT was a complex process of transmission and editing through generations that took it’s final form in the exhillic and post-exhillic periods. However that doesn’t not change the concept of inspiration working through that process and of the documents becoming Scripture as they sit in their final form and the greater understanding of God and His purposes through it (such as the realization of resurrection arising out of the God of creation being committed to justice and putting injustice right, with creation and judgement coming together leading resurrection among other things), that things were discerned and revealed in a long, complex and multi-faceted journey in which the documents of the Hebrew Scriptures took the form they did (and the Jews gained the understanding(s) they did).
Also it’s vital for both to read the ancient documents for what they are, not what they are not, and not to import modern concepts, genre understandings and conventions in documents in which they would have been foreign to both the authors, and original people and audience. It is to misread them completely either way. For instance, it is anachronistic to talk of Paul having deterministic views in post-Reformation sense at together, these weren’t the questions he or his audiences would be thinking about in the 1st century AD, while you might take such ideas in a developed theological system from that, those terms were not part of the world-views that Paul was apart of. In regards to the synoptic gospels the need to read and understand 1st century Jewish apocalyptic language and it’s uses is also important to understand exactly what Jesus is warning of and what He isn’t (rather then letting modern conceptions deriving from medieval and later pictures of hell and hellfire force an meaning it may very well not be intended to have at all and is alien to the text, and wouldn’t have been heard as such. Equally, however you view the text of say Joshua (and whether you view it as actually happening, and the potential use of a previous boundary list used by a king for taxation being reused by it’s author(s) for another purpose to describe the tribal allotments) you need to read the literature as the near eastern literature it is and see the use of conquest hyperbole that was common in the ancient near east seen in inscriptions and such, describing kings and Pharaohs destroying a people utterly, but then talking about about the people as prisoners and the cities still being there (and their are indications this is the case in Joshua). It was a common means of triumphalistic way to describe (or at least portray battle of campaign as such in ancient forms of propaganda ) a total victory (with some analogy to modern usages in sporting and other venues where people talk of annihilating their opposition, and we being of that culture immediately understand said people don’t literally mean they actually annihilated the other side out of existence). This understanding was part of the world of language and meaning in the near East and would have been heard and understood in that manner, but not to us because we are products of a very different culture.
I’m not here either defending the depiction of conquest or how we should interpret the authority of Scripture (and I have actually lot of sympathy with the view that the common evangelical view of innerancy is not sustainable as we understand both the Scriptures themselves, how they came to be and how they functioned in their original historical settings. In fact I would say inerrancy as it is defined by such things as the Chicago Statement is falsified by the orality of Scripture, and another way forward is needed that takes into account how the biblical writers, Old and New Testaments, thought and saw what they wrote). However whichever side people fall (pro or against inerrancy or at least a form of it) and how you approach the Biblical documents I would plead to let those documents be what they are, not what they are not, reading them as the various forms of ancient literature they are, and not look to them to speak or answer questions they were not intended (nor was their writers or audience interested) in answering, and not to expect them to speak perfectly to a culture (ie ours) that didn’t even exist then, without significant thought, trans-cultural translation, and interaction with that ancient culture and the documents their produced. Understand it on it’s own terms, as documents of their own time and culture(s), in it’s own language (and associated landscape of meaning, understanding and world-view) and how that was heard, not importing meanings into the text that are foreign to them, or understandings, ideas and ways of thinking that just weren’t how people thought about things at the various times the Scriptures were developed, to do such is anachronistic and leads to various degrees of mishearing and misreading what they are actually saying.
Dear Night Raven - I won’t comment on the content of your post (because it is for Lotharson). However, having just read your introduction and realised that you are dyslexic I would like to say THIS POST IS BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN. RESPECT
I agree with Dick, Nightrevan!
Wonderfully said! And, though I don’t know if you read Peter Enns, very much in-line with his perspective on scripture ,(and mine, I’ll add.) I know Lotharson is familiar with Enns’s work so will be interested to hear his reply…
Yes – well done, Night Raven. And I agree with you and with Dave, so there’s no point my replying to your points, Lotharson, as I would say less and also less well than that which has already been said. Just to make it plain and clear though, I’m not the sort of inerrantist that’s become popular in our time. Probably you and I agree on that.
Dave: I was not trying to throw out heavy punches against anyone. I have a naturally provocative writing style but had no evil intentions whatsoever.
I used “we” and included myself in the formulation too. ALL Christians should be honest.
Raven of the night: I agree with many things you wrote.
But the hyperbolic-language-argument does not work. As Thom Stark argued, the book of Joshua is composite in its very nature and the authors speaking of utter destruction (Josias scribe) never contradicted themselves.
I’ll leave this one to some of the others who like to discuss Calvinism, but I wanted to say that. (And roll my eyes.) 
Someone has been drinking too much Kool-Aid, imo. Either that or he’s a LOT smarter than me (which he probably is) and is just leaving me in the dust. What he said there . . . does that even say anything at all?
.
but I have faith that everybody here can decipher it anyway 