HAS GOD PURPOSED TO SAVE ANY OTHER THAN HIS OWN ELECT?
The following is an imaginary conversation between two Christian
friends. One holds to the Doctrines of Grace, a.k.a. Calvinism while
the other denies these doctrines. They are good friends - each believes
in the free offer of the gospel and each display that evangelistic zeal
which ought to mark out every believer in the Lord Jesus. The
conversation is friendly and gracious and we want it to stay that way.
The trouble with imaginary conversations is that the author's side
always wins. The other side always slinks off to rethink their position
or even better come out with their hands up. It will probably happen
here, unless we rob the Calvinist of some of his knowledge.
At the moment, they are not discussing the whole range of issues within
the Calvinist debate. Limited atonement etc., is not on the table for
discussion. The issue here is simply: Has God purposed to save any
other than His own elect? As we will see, the key word is the word "purposed" If the reader thinks that some point is particularly weak or something needs to be added, email
me and if I think it is worth rewriting the script, I'll do
it…just for you. This is a universal offer with no strings
attached. This means you will have to keep an eye on the recent
updates to the site part of the index page to see whether or not the script changes.
I have no suitable names for these friends. I read a book once which
used this style very effectively and deals with the Jehovah Witness
controversy. Conveniently, the Witness is called Jay and the Christian is called Chris.
I had thought of calling the Calvinist, Grace (She is a sister beloved)
and the non Calvinist Will (Short for William) but I thought that was
probably a bit loaded. So no names. Just C for the Calvinist. His comments are in red. N/C for the non Calvinist. His comments are in black. Let's eavesdrop!
-o0o-
PICTURE THE SCENE: Two Christian friends meet together for a cup of coffee...
N/C:- "Hi brother! I was reading a bit of Calvin
last night, as you suggested. There is a lot of good stuff there for
all Christians, but I still find it hard when he says that God has only
purposed to save His elect. It does not seem to tie in with what the
Bibles says, and it is the Bible that the final court of appeal."
C:- "I agree
with you that if Calvin goes against the Bible, then God's word must
have the precedence. However, calmly considered, the Bible itself
teaches that God has only purposed to save His elect."
N/C:- "You seem very sure about it! There are many
verses that teach that God desires to see all men saved and is not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
How can you say that He has purposed to save only His elect?"
C:- "First of
all, we are agreed that God has purposes, do we not? We hardly profess
to worship a purposeless God?"
N/C:- "Obviously not. But I contend that He has
purposed to save everyone…it is just that there are those who
reject salvation and damn their own souls."
C:-
"Certainly I agree that those who reject salvation are the authors of
their own destruction. Calvin taught this also. But we need to look at
this thought of God purposing something."
N/C:- "Go on. Let's try and get this rooted in
Scripture. Calvin, after all, was only a man. What saith the
Scripture?"
C:- "Fair enough. I was thinking of the verse in Isaiah 14:34 which states:
'The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so
shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.'
The last part of the verse seems so definite. As God purposes, so it
stands. It seems to me then that if He purposed to save the whole human
race, then the whole human race would be saved."
N/C:- "Hmmm. We are not to build a doctrine on one
verse. The whole tenor scripture seems to militate against it. Have you
any other verses?"
C:- "Yes. Isaiah repeats the assertion three verses on when he wrote: "For
the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his
hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? and again he
wrote: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my
counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it
to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.'" There are other verses from Daniel and elsewhere."
N/C:- "Yes. As you mention it,
Daniel records the words that none can stay God's hand or say unto Him,
'What doest thou?' But what do you make of Matthew 23:37 where Christ
said that He would have gathered Jerusalem, but they would not? And 2
Peter 3:9 which says that God is not willing that any should perish and
indeed in 1 Timothy 2:4 where He says that He would have all men to be
saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? It is verses like these
that keep me from embracing your Calvinistic system."
C:- "Well
obviously, we agree that there is no contradiction in the word of God.
Neither system would be worth tuppence if that was the case."
N/C:- "Agreed. But if Christ said
that He would have saved Jerusalem, only they would not…surely
He is declaring that He had purposed to do so?"
C:- "If it was
His purpose to do so, and they would not…do you think Daniel has
found an answer to his question? Or that Isaiah's words should not be
taken too seriously?"
N/C:- "I see your point. But the Bible distinctly says that God is not willing that any
should perish. Why then do men perish if He wills otherwise? If He will
have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth why
haven't all men come? There must be an answer to these questions."
C:- "There is. Excuse me for going to another
theologian, but if they can word something clearly, then there is
little point in me trying to improve upon it. Robert Dabney points out
that although God's will is absolutely executed over all free agents;
yet Scripture is full of declarations that sinful men and devils
disobey His will! There must be, he argues, a distinction between God's
secret and revealed will and His decretive and preceptive will."
N/C:- "What! Two wills in God? This doesn't sound right."
C:- "No, Dabney goes on: 'All
God's will must be, in reality, a single, eternal, immutable act. The
distinction, therefore, is one necessitated by our limitation of
understanding, and relates only to the manifestation of the parts of
this will to the creature.'"
N/C:- "What are these distinctions?"
C:- "We must
divide God's will between His secretive will and His preceptive will.
What God has decreed - or purposed - surely comes to pass. It is His
secretive or decretive will that is in mind in Ephesians 1:11 when we
read that He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. On
the other hand, though, in God's preceptive will - what He has set
forth as His requirements - it is (as Dabney points) very obvious that
it is disobeyed all the time."
N/C:- "OK…it sounds
plausible enough, but how do you apply these distinctions to the verses
I have just quoted?"
C:- "It's not
very hard. Take Matthew 23:37 where Christ wept over Jerusalem and said
that He would have gathered them but they would not. Obviously here, He
had often - His own words - declared to them that if they were willing
to be saved, then he was willing to save them. God has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked. It brings no joy to Him to see men writhe in
pain in hell. He is not a monster. Jerusalem did not respond positively
to His gracious invitations and subsequently His preceptive will has
been left undone."
N/C:- "Why then did He not decree
to save Jerusalem if His decrees cannot be overthrown? Surely that
would solve the problem?"
C:- "That's a
good question! We cannot answer it, except to say that it pleased God
to do otherwise. We ought always to remember that He was not under any
obligation to save any - otherwise it would not be grace - and
therefore He was not only any obligation to save all."
N/C:- "I suppose then you would
put 2 Peter 3:9 where it says that He is not willing that any should
perish into the same mould - God's declarative will as opposed to His
decretive will?"
C:- "If
you apply the verse in a general sense to all men…then yes. Some
interpret it to refer only to the folk to whom it was originally
written i.e. those who have obtained like precious faith (1:1) Whatever
way…it can never be said that God has purposed to save any other
than His own elect. Same again for 1 Timothy 2:4 that declares that He
would have all men to be saved."
N/C:- "I read Iain Murray's book on these things recently…"
C:- "You mean the Banner of Truth one: 'Spurgeon versus Hyper-Calvinism' It is very good."
N/C:- "He quotes from Spurgeon's sermon on 1 Timothy 2:4.
Spurgeon there seems to distance himself from the regular Calvinistic
interpretation that all men means all kinds of men as opposed to all
men without any exception. What do you think of that?"
C:- "Whatever way, you take it, we are back to the same idea. In this sermon Spurgeon still safeguarded his interpretation by stating the obvious: 'It
is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be
saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a
divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed
to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the
salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved.'
N/C:- "It just seems so hard to accept…"
C:- "I agree.
Dabney in his article says that there are plausible objections, but we
are all impelled to make the distinction. The alternative is harder to
accept. If God's purposes can be overthrown then we represent Him as a
Being whose desires are perpetually crossed and baffled: yea, trampled
on and the most harassed, embarrassed, and impotent Being in the
universe. Deny the other part of our distinction, and you represent God
as acquiescing in all the iniquities done on earth and in hell.
Remember too, again to quote Dabney, the issue is not with Calvinism,
but with the doctrine of Inspiration. The Book teaches it."
N/C:- "If these things are all
settled and sealed - why do you preach the gospel at all? Will the
elect come whether you preach or not?"
C:- "That's
easy to answer. God has commanded us to preach. God has ordained not
only the end or the purpose, but the means to that end. If I didn't
preach…someone else with a balanced view of scripture would. Let
me ask you a question! Why do you preach if there is nothing solid to
hold on to?
N/C:- " Meaning?"
C:- "Well. If
God's purposes can be overthrown or He has not purposed to save anyone
in particular but all men in general and is therefore
disappointed…do you just preach on the off chance that someone
might get saved?"
N/C:- "I don't like that phrase off chance for a start!…"
C:- "I thought
that would stir you! :-) But how else can we describe it? You
don't suppose men get saved because the powers of darkness decide they
can go? We are back to the need of God having a purpose, and again, no
man can say that God has purposed to save all men, but only His elect."
N/C:- I see your point. Why not just preach to the elect?"
C:- "Where does
God tell us just to preach to the elect? Besides, who am I to discern
among the ungodly who the elect are?"
N/C:- "I have often wondered why
you preached the gospel to all men in general. I thought you were being
somewhat inconsistent with your creed."
C:- "Spurgeon
said in that sermon that he would rather be inconsistent with his creed
then inconsistent with God's word. Any way, it is not inconsistent for
a Calvinist to preach indiscriminately to all men. Calvin did it but
more importantly, God has commanded it. It leaves the reprobate without
excuse, and it fulfils the purposes of God in bringing many sons to
glory."
N/C:- "I better think about this again. It is quite radical."
C:- "It is only radical if we make man's theology our starting point. The other doctrine of the helplessness of God is the radical doctrine if we place it against the word of God."
N/C:- "I think I'll speak to a few
friends about it and get their thoughts on it. Thanks for your time."