Piper's "Does God Desire All To Be Saved?"

[corpselight]

Myshkin, I think you’re a good deal more widely-read than I am, so some of the things you talk about are somewhat opaque to me. For some reason I can’t seem to train myself to read with any degree of speed and still comprehend what I read. I guess a man’s got to know his limitations (or hers in my case).

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the scriptures seem to me to be taken by many as some sort of fourth member of the Godhead (making it a “quatrity”?) The way Paul and the other apostles (and Jesus for that matter) interpreted the “writings” would drive any modern rationalist exegete crazy.

My interpretation method goes something like this (theoretically): I read, copy down word for word, write out my paraphrase, then ask myself the 5 W’s + an H, Then, what does this tell me about God?; what does it tell me about people?; what does it tell me about our relationship with God?; about our relationship with other people? Is there a Sin to avoid?, a Promise or a Prayer or a Praise? an Example to follow? a Commandment to obey?, some Knowledge of God to treasure? (S.P.E.C.K.)

The thing is, that’s not enough to satisfy me. The Holy Spirit breaks into this study and I welcome that “interruption.” Father gives me new insights into His word that could never have come from a mere mundane study of it. Yes the study is vital and without it, I very much doubt I could gain the depths of the Spirit. But without the Spirit, the study would mean less than nothing; it would only deceive me into thinking I know far more than I do know, and cause me to trust in that knowledge instead of trusting in my Father. Both the rational and the mystical are vital to us – or at any rate, vital to me.

The opacity of the scriptures to those who believe they should be studied for the “letter” doesn’t trouble me. The thing that troubles me is that people so foolishly do precisely what the Pharisees did – and of course, the fact that I and you are in danger of doing the same, because that kind of “study” is natural to us. It’s important to me that the revelations I believe I receive from Father do not contradict or go in a different direction from the whole witness of scripture, so I study hard. I do believe that we the church need leaders (a thing I wasn’t so sure of not long ago) because many people do not or cannot take the time to study as I’m privileged to do. I depend heavily on the scholars who open up the Greek and Hebrew to me and provide me with what information is available concerning cultures and histories and the beliefs of the early/mid/late servants of the church. We do need these leader-scholars, or at the least, we benefit greatly from their work. Ultimately though, it is the Spirit who gives life. If anyone is of the Spirit of Christ, he will have the life and the mind of Christ, whether or not he has complete understanding of the written word (as none of us do).

I’m afraid I’ve gone off on somewhat of a tangent. And I’m not sure whether I’ve actually addressed your question – still I hope this helps you to understand my position.

Love, Cindy

This is excellent stuff, Cindy. I believe that the church is a community, and that God made us relational. If that’s true, we all have different and unique roles to play, inspiring each other, edifying each other, and contributing the knowledge we have gained because of our unique interests. We must trust that God puts people in our lives that fulfill these needs, or at least “sharpen us”, even when that’s frustrating. So we don’t all have to know Greek, and i’d thus say that not everyone needs to know about UR, because God can do that when He wants.

Prince…God didn’t make the Bible anything. The Bible is God-breathed, which i believe means “inspired by God”. I could write a sonnet on a rainbow that inspired me, and nobody would claim the rainbow dictated what i wrote. The Bible contains many, many voices…each with their own baggage and opinions and culture to say the least, and that feeds into it. God transcends all these voices and allows us to see Him through this strangely cobbled together, often contradictory book. I can see the truth of God’s universal plan made plain in the overall narrative. It is in this meta-narrative that we start to realise that this Source of Creation is LOVE, and that LOVE is all powerful, and that LOVE works with our imperfections (even those we’ve put into this book many of us fancy is infallible, but actually HAS to be fallible as it’s limited to human beings writing down the ineffable revelations God graced them with) to bring about His perfect plan. This plan is one of the few things clearly stated in the Bible…that God WILLS all people to be saved. WILLS is a strong word there indicating His purpose, which we know cannot be thwarted.

The rest is just details…and the devil is not in them. GOD is in them. And we put our trust (a better translation than faith) in Him to get it right. And we work alongside Him in joy because we are confident He can do what He sets out to do.

I don’t really think John Piper has added anything noteworthy to the conversation…just because he affirms some evangelical values i agree with doesn’t make him worth hearing. He also affirms some “evangelical” views i find repugnant and unBiblical, so i’d rather spend my time reading more edifying things, and being challenged not to be doctrinally correct…but to do what Jesus told us to do, which isn’t quibble over things but try to make a difference in the world by establishing His Kingdom of justice and mercy.

[Sobornost]

Great posts James and Cindy -

And hi Prince - I hope you saw I deleted my two little quips. I was only trying to lighten the conversation - I didn’t mean any of it seriously

[Paidion]

In our day, we usually think of “destroy” as either annihilation or being broken apart into small pieces.

But I invite you to consider how “απολλυμι” (apollumi), id est, “destroy” is sometimes used in the scriptures as shown in the following passage from I Peter 1:3-7

Praise be the God and Father of the Anointed Lord Jesus, who, in keeping with His great mercy has regenerated us for the purpose of a living hope, through the resurrection of the Anointed Jesus from the dead, into an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance reserved in heaven for you, who, by the power of God are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. In this you exult, yet for a little while, if necessary, grieving in various trials in order that the testing of you of the faith, very valuable,gold being destroyed through fire, yet being tested, may be found for praise and glory and honour at the revealing of Jesus the Anointed.

Peter compared either his readers or their faith to gold being destroyed by fire. Now we all know that pure gold cannot be destroyed by fire. It can be melted, but cannot be destroyed (in the usual sense of the word). What then, did Peter mean? Did he not mean that gold in its original form (gold ore) can be destroyed by fire so that the pure gold can come forth? Was he not referring to the refining process? When we undergo various trials, our character can be refined.

*But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner‘s fire and like fullers’ soap. Malachi 3:2 RSV *

Both fire and soap can purify. That is what the Lord can do for a person, and sometimes He does it through trials.

Someone may object that some translations refer to gold as being “perishable” in I Peter 3:7, and again in verse 18, where Peter clearly speaks of gold being perishable.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers.

However,Peter used a different word from that which he used in verse 7. The word is better translated as “corruptible”. The Greek word is the adjective “phthartos” which is derived from the verb “phtheirō”. The Online Bible Lexicon gives the following note for the latter word:

In the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or “destroyed” when anyone defiled or in the slightest degree damaged anything in it, or if its guardians neglected their duties.

So gold can be corrupted in this sense, it can be scratched or dirtied, or altered in other ways. But pure gold cannot be “destroyed” in the usual sense.

What I believe to be Paul’s meaning of **aeonian destruction ** of the wicked. They will suffer a very severe refinement in the fires of Gehenna which will destroy their sinful, wicked natures, until the pure “gold” shines forth. Of course, they, themselves will have to repent and submit to Messiah Jesus in order for the refining process to be effective. And quite likely, the fully mature sons of God will have a part in bringing the truth to these people. Sometimes, the righteous suffer such a refining process in this life. The refining of the wicked in that day will be much, much, more severe. Perhaps less refining will be necessary for those who have never heard the gospel in this life (some of them have never heard of Jesus). Whatever the case, God will do what is best for every individual.

[Jonny95]

Hi Jonny95

Great post mate. You cut straight to the chase of the absurdity of Calvinism. And you’re right, Piper does indeed think God has no moral obligation to his precious children, made in his image let us remember. Says he:

"I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And, though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me I should not rail against the Almighty

. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of the earth has ever and always will do right." (my emphasis)

Think about that statement for a moment. Piper only thinks he would give his life to save his children from eternal damnation. Wow, you’re all heart, John! Most parents I know would give their lives to save their children from physical death. Piper only thinks he would give his life to save his children from eternal death. (Note he doesn’t even contemplate giving up his own salvation for the sake of his kids - unlike the apostle Paul.)

Also, assuming he WOULD give his life for his sons’ salvation, it’s quite worrying that he doesn’t realise that he’s actually claiming a higher level of love than God - HE would die for the salvation of his sons but it’s possible God wouldn’t. No better way to subtly make a slant on God than to effectively claim that you’re more loving than him.

We’re in a little bit of trouble if God is less loving than John Piper.
This is interesting actually…didn’t God actually do just this: give His life for His evil children!!! what else could we be before His grace but reprobate sinners by even this form of theology?

Absolutely but Piper doesn’t believe that God died for everyone - he only has grace for some. Why? We don’t know. If we’re all sinners as you say, then under his theology we have no contribution whatsoever towards our salvation. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that viewpoint. How does God choose who to save though? That can’t be explained - if the elect haven’t done anything above the reprobate in order to be saved, then God’s not being impartial. If the elect have done something above the reprobate, then by Piper’s logic, they’ve worked for their salvation. Either of those ways doesn’t work.

So if the elect haven’t done anything for their salvation and God has picked them and not others, without the elect having done anything to contribute towards their salvation, then it has to be because he views it as for his glory and plan. Now I’m not quite sure how it gives you glory when you decide to pick some for salvation and not others, based on no advantage in the character of the elect over the reprobate but let’s say God decides it does give him glory. Has he really shown grace and love to anyone, even the elect? He’s actually saved the elect for the one and only reason that it gives him glory. He hasn’t showed love or grace towards them because they have nothing in their character to distinguish them from the reprobate who he’s predestined to hell - the only reason the elect have been saved is because God decides it gives himself glory. At no point has he saved the elect for any other reason than his own ego. There is no self-giving love being shown.

The more and more you unpack Calvinism, the more ridiculous it gets.

[corpselight]

Also, assuming he WOULD give his life for his sons’ salvation, it’s quite worrying that he doesn’t realise that he’s actually claiming a higher level of love than God - HE would die for the salvation of his sons but it’s possible God wouldn’t. No better way to subtly make a slant on God than to effectively claim that you’re more loving than him.

We’re in a little bit of trouble if God is less loving than John Piper.

This is interesting actually…didn’t God actually do just this: give His life for His evil children!!! what else could we be before His grace but reprobate sinners by even this form of theology?
Absolutely but Piper doesn’t believe that God died for everyone - he only has grace for some. Why? We don’t know. If we’re all sinners as you say, then under his theology we have no contribution whatsoever towards our salvation. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that viewpoint. How does God choose who to save though? That can’t be explained - if the elect haven’t done anything above the reprobate in order to be saved, then God’s not being impartial. If the elect have done something above the reprobate, then by Piper’s logic, they’ve worked for their salvation. Either of those ways doesn’t work.

So if the elect haven’t done anything for their salvation and God has picked them and not others, without the elect having done anything to contribute towards their salvation, then it has to be because he views it as for his glory and plan. Now I’m not quite sure how it gives you glory when you decide to pick some for salvation and not others, based on no advantage in the character of the elect over the reprobate but let’s say God decides it does give him glory. Has he really shown grace and love to anyone, even the elect? He’s actually saved the elect for the one and only reason that it gives him glory. He hasn’t showed love or grace towards them because they have nothing in their character to distinguish them from the reprobate who he’s predestined to hell - the only reason the elect have been saved is because God decides it gives himself glory. At no point has he saved the elect for any other reason than his own ego. There is no self-giving love being shown.

The more and more you unpack Calvinism, the more ridiculous it gets.

Another excellent post!
It really is ridiculous. I don’t care really how “logical” Calvin was (as a friend of mine who’s reading him thinks, though he’s not a Calvinist, just wants to understand it), this is truly a demonstrably false, soft target.
I still find Arminian arguments harder to argue against than Calvinism. There’s a way to disprove all the 5 points, but harder to argue against vague arguments about free will, which are actually pretty weak because of their vagueness, but still. It’s like fighting fog.

[Prince_Myshkin]

Corpselight,

Well, it is comforting to think that Gould would grant everybody, who was not in position to discern the Word themselves, a teacher or mentor to elucidate His Will. Perhaps in the Internet age this is not too hard to concede.

However, who elucidates the teachers? Presumably God and knowledge, but our teachers are saying different things. For instance, Piper would not disagree with you that scripture clearly indicates that God wills all be saved. Yet, I think the pt of Pipers book is that there are passages which, at least prima facie indciate that God indeed does not elect all to salvation.

Now, either Piper is mistaken or the Bible is indeed conflicting. (notice, I didn’t say u are mistaken ). Obviously, you are defending the former view; yet, you might notice that you are admitting in places that Piper might not be so off his rocker (for Piper agrees with you that the Bible affirms that scripture states the God wants all to come to repentance, but, even though it is illogical, maintains sola scriptura above human logic and argues that the Bible contains different wills for God, a universal salvific will, but a will only to save the elect ). Even if you deny Calvinism, a person might throw up their hands, as many agnostics and deists do, and not know what indeed the Bible affirms. So, the pt I would like to make, is not so much that it stands or falls whether our Bible was verbatim received as the Qu’ran, but that, irrespective of one’s position on Biblical authority (unless you are a completely natural theologian, which I am assuming you are not), is that God knows that the Bible, or revelation, is the only way we could know God’s plan substantively. Perhaps our hearts tell us that universalism must be T, so that drives a certain interpretation of Scripture; yet, perhaps we second-guess the heart, as Piper might in trying to affirm scripture above experience per sola scriptura, in seeing that the Bible is not as explicit as it could be if universalism is indeed T.

Perhaps this is an argument to soteriological agnosticism based on the hiddenness of God, but I think it becomes more significant when you move from bare existence of God (which this hiddenness is usually invoked) to a personal, revealing God through the Word. If God knows that his prophets and the apostles are the only means by which nearly all of us get the message about his plan, why wouldn’t God ensure that this message was as unambiguous as possible? If you say, “Well, God, has to respect the imperfections of his writers” I think that is insufficient, b/c time-and-time in the OT and NT God is directly revealing Godself to counter bad interpretations. Why has God, then, left off for so long when people are hotly disputing the meaning of his revelation? I might be inclined to agree with you that Bible exegetes are modern day prophets, but it isn’t like the question to be solved is if 2+2=4, it is the deciphering of a complex, ancient documents in hard languages, and the exegetes, perhaps you on one hand and Piper on the other, disagree substantially, but have a enough pts of commonality that it is hard to know what to believe sometimes. I woudln’t say that it is the peripheral issues that are debated, but whether universalism is or is not T, which I doubt you find peripheral (though you seem to think the Bible is unambiguous on this pt).

[Prince_Myshkin]

Paidion,

Do u think both u and Piper could have part of truth; that is, God has elected a portion of His creation to not undergo this destroying purification in the afterlife and reprobated the rest to have to endure it (while not being eternally - infinitely - lost)?

What do you think of the Biblical evidence for “combination” views like Molinism compared to Arm or Cal (and I guess there is “Arm” Univ. and “Cal” Univ. at least…)?

[Prince_Myshkin]

Thanks Sobornost! Yeah, you got to be able to joke around about this stuff to some degree, else one is tempted to start ripping pages from Calvin’s Institutes and make paper airplanes or something or to find a stick-on 16th century mustache and do the hustle (not that I have ever done these ).

[corpselight]

Corpselight,

Well, it is comforting to think that Gould would grant everybody, who was not in position to discern the Word themselves, a teacher or mentor to elucidate His Will. Perhaps in the Internet age this is not too hard to concede.

However, who elucidates the teachers? Presumably God and knowledge, but our teachers are saying different things. For instance, Piper would not disagree with you that scripture clearly indicates that God wills all be saved. Yet, I think the pt of Pipers book is that there are passages which, at least prima facie indciate that God indeed does not elect all to salvation.

Now, either Piper is mistaken or the Bible is indeed conflicting. (notice, I didn’t say u are mistaken ). Obviously, you are defending the former view; yet, you might notice that you are admitting in places that Piper might not be so off his rocker (for Piper agrees with you that the Bible affirms that scripture states the God wants all to come to repentance, but, even though it is illogical, maintains sola scriptura above human logic and argues that the Bible contains different wills for God, a universal salvific will, but a will only to save the elect ). Even if you deny Calvinism, a person might throw up their hands, as many agnostics and deists do, and not know what indeed the Bible affirms. So, the pt I would like to make, is not so much that it stands or falls whether our Bible was verbatim received as the Qu’ran, but that, irrespective of one’s position on Biblical authority (unless you are a completely natural theologian, which I am assuming you are not), is that God knows that the Bible, or revelation, is the only way we could know God’s plan substantively. Perhaps our hearts tell us that universalism must be T, so that drives a certain interpretation of Scripture; yet, perhaps we second-guess the heart, as Piper might in trying to affirm scripture above experience per sola scriptura, in seeing that the Bible is not as explicit as it could be if universalism is indeed T.

Perhaps this is an argument to soteriological agnosticism based on the hiddenness of God, but I think it becomes more significant when you move from bare existence of God (which this hiddenness is usually invoked) to a personal, revealing God through the Word. If God knows that his prophets and the apostles are the only means by which nearly all of us get the message about his plan, why wouldn’t God ensure that this message was as unambiguous as possible? If you say, “Well, God, has to respect the imperfections of his writers” I think that is insufficient, b/c time-and-time in the OT and NT God is directly revealing Godself to counter bad interpretations. Why has God, then, left off for so long when people are hotly disputing the meaning of his revelation? I might be inclined to agree with you that Bible exegetes are modern day prophets, but it isn’t like the question to be solved is if 2+2=4, it is the deciphering of a complex, ancient documents in hard languages, and the exegetes, perhaps you on one hand and Piper on the other, disagree substantially, but have a enough pts of commonality that it is hard to know what to believe sometimes. I woudln’t say that it is the peripheral issues that are debated, but whether universalism is or is not T, which I doubt you find peripheral (though you seem to think the Bible is unambiguous on this pt).

I think we have to accept our limitations, and also accept that anyone we choose to listen to is also similarly limited. In 100 years, doubtless people will look back at us and wonder at our obvious errors…but to us, from our perspective, they’re not obvious.
I don’t think the Bible is error free, but i think that we can trust God to reveal to us what we need to know. We’re GOING to get stuff doctrinally wrong…that’s expected. Some stuff is pretty critical, granted, but the Bible’s usually fairly clear on those bits. They’re the bits we tend to agree on…God is righteous and expects us to deal with others with the same justice and mercy we were given. God rewards those who trust in Him, etc etc. We are able to judge things on their fruit: ie, Calvinism when taken to logical conclusions leads to breastbeating misanthropy, lack of compassion and pride…Arminianism has nasty fruit in that your state of being saved depends on you getting it right all the time, Universalism when properly released tells us to get out into the harvest and rejoice because God is trustworthy and wants us to participate in the harvest. Ironically, Calvinism if improperly released can cause people to be the right kind of humble and still love their neighbours because they MIGHT be elect…Arminianism improperly released can lead to good fruit as well, in that we see the freedom in God’s love for us and the scope of His redemption… in both cases, the moderate forms can bear perfectly good fruit. Universalism, is a bit different though…in it’s improper form, it can lead to moral laxity, pluralism, and a life of sin. It requires people to grasp it with both hands and take part…not just sit on the sidelines. It requires an attitude of love for the world. So i’m not sure what to make of this…except that to me it seems that regardless of our doctrinal background, we can choose to be the sort of Calv/Arm/Uni who bears the right sort of fruit…which ultimately makes the eschatological view pointless…and it then all comes down to one thing: your relationship with Christ. Do you trust Him? Do you do what He commands in regards to your dealings with others? Get those two things right and any doctrine you feel is right can bear good fruit…get them wrong and no matter what you profess, you’re going to do damage.

So i guess what i’m saying is that yes, it’s confusing…one can build and defend so many viewpoints from the Bible. But it doesn’t matter as much as perhaps even i want it to…what matters is that the Bible unambiguously stresses trusting God and doing justly and loving mercy.

We are children, and we’ve only just gotten over our belief in the tooth fairy, let alone Santa Claus…our Parent is patient with His children, and only gets upset with them when they ignore Him and treat their fellow children badly.

Sorry that’s rambly, hope it makes sense

[Prince_Myshkin]

but I still believe in Santa Claus (even when I am wrapping my own presents and eating the cookies - he just has to outsource since he’s gets busier every year)

[Catherine]

Paidion,

Do u think both u and Piper could have part of truth; that is, God has elected a portion of His creation to not undergo this destroying purification in the afterlife and reprobated the rest to have to endure it (while not being eternally - infinitely - lost)?

What do you think of the Biblical evidence for “combination” views like Molinism compared to Arm or Cal (and I guess there is “Arm” Univ. and “Cal” Univ. at least…)?

This is interesting [tag]Prince Myshkin[/tag] and [tag]Paidion[/tag] I’ve been discussing whether God wants to save ‘all’ people and not just the ‘elect’ with a Christadelphian friend. They are not Calvinists but are similar in some ways. I mentioned 2 Peter 3:9 to him, to show how God does not want anyone at all to be destroyed, but he took me through the preceding verses and the following verses to get the sense of the context. He said that Peter is writing only to believers and so it is believers that God does not want to be destroyed- hence verse 17 and the possibility that some of these believers could lose their secure position. Paidon’s post about apollumi is very interesting. In 2 Peter 3:7, the ungodly men are ‘destroyed’ and hence Peter is not wanting any of the believers to doubt that Jesus is coming back etc, and go back into sinful behaviour and lose their secure position. If we view the destruction as not being annihilation (which my friend believes is what is meant), then it does give hope to these sinful ones who are destroyed.

[SLJ]

Hi Catherine,

That word “apollumi” is translated “lost” here, clearly not in a permanent sense:

Luk 15:24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost (G622) and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

If you go to this link and scroll down, you can see a list of all the passages where that word is used. You might find that helpful in coming to a better sense of what it means.

Sonia

[Catherine]

Hi Catherine,

That word “apollumi” is translated “lost” here, clearly not in a permanent sense:

Luk 15:24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost (G622) and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

If you go to this link and scroll down, you can see a list of all the passages where that word is used. You might find that helpful in coming to a better sense of what it means.

Sonia

Hi Sonia, that’s a great resource. I’ve heard of it but never checked it out. I use biblehub. Some of the verses do not allow for the meaning of ‘lost’ it seems: Matt 2:13: Herod destroying the child; Matt 10:28: destroy body and soul in Gehenna; ‘Lost’ makes no sense in these verses and many others in that list. Herod wanted to kill Jesus. He wanted to destroy Him and so verses like the one in 2 Peter that talks of God destroying ungodly men, we know it means to kill them or cause them to perish (be no more), which is MORE than just being lost, like the coin. Looking at all those examples, it seems that most times it’s translated as ‘perished’, and the ones where it is ‘lost’, can still work with the idea of the things that is ‘lost’ as being ‘perished’ e.g Luk 9:25 “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses G622 or forfeits himself?’’ could read ‘’ for what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and has his life perish?’’ If something is ‘lost’ it doesn’t mean it will stay lost-like the coin, whereas what Herod wanted to do to Jesus was without hope of reversal- destroy Him.