Gene and Jonathan speak with Tony Byrne about the differences between Arminianism, Moderate Calvinism, High Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. Every Calvinist should listen to this episode! Here is Tony's chart. Check our Tony's blog for more resources on this subject.
If you want to download this show for free you will
have to subscribe to the podcast from our homepage.
(Click here if you want instructions on how to subscribe to podcast)
The CD quality files are available for .98 each at Unchained Radio
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
6 comments:
It's Byrne, not "Burn" lol
I don't understand the Biblical backing or even the significance of saying that God in some sense wills the salvation of the non-elect?
1. I find this phrasing to be self-contradictory.
2. I find the Biblical backing for it, such as 1 Tim 2:4, and 2 Pet 3:9, to remain ambiguous, hence 'all' can mean 'all kinds', and Peter was writing to the elect in the first place.
3. If it is for evangelistic purposes, then again, it's self contradictory. I don't have to believe that "in some sense" God wills for the salvation of the non-elect to still preach the gospel to every creature, knowing that through my efforts God will save His people.
Cameron,
It does seem self-contradictory on the surface, as much of Calvinism does. This is why Calvinists must grasp the idea of paradox (as mentioned in the broadcast). Check out this article from John Piper for a fascinating answer to your question:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/
It seems John Piper heavily rests on 1 Tim 2:4 to prove the two wills of God, and also admits how the passage doesn't answer the problem but creates it. I would argue it only creates it if in fact 'pas' is interpreted as 'all without exception' instead of 'all kinds'. I lean towards the latter given the context.
I think the texts which create the problem would be 1 Sam 2:25, Eze 18:23, and Isa 53:10. All use the word 'chaphets' for desire or pleasure. God takes pleasure in destroying the wicked, then doesn't, then does in crushing His Son.
(My purpose in better understanding these issues is to try and know the nature of God better, not necessarily evangelism. Even if God does take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked I am fully motivated to evangelize, because I simply don't know who the elect are. I think the two wills of God is a secondary issue when it comes to evangelism)
Cameron,
I get your point, and I agree it should not be an issue in evangelism. Unfortunately, some have tried to make it an issue.
I need to take up those three Scriptures you mentioned and give them some meditation. Thanks for an interesting exchange!
Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton
Cameron,
I've put some thought into the Scriptures you mentioned, and they do indeed create an interesting puzzle. My conclusion is this: the passage in Ezekiel lays out a general principle: God desires for the lost to turn to Him and be saved. This is His "revealed" will. However, in bringing about the best possible outcome He has allowed in His "hidden" will that some continue in their obstinacy and never turn to Him. This would be the case with the passage in I Samuel. It is a specific case in which God did not give two individuals the grace to turn to Himself (though He would have been pleased if they had), and a bit of His "hidden" will is revealed. The author does this with a purpose, namely to show God's sovereign choice of Samuel as His prophet. And the passage in Isaiah 53 brings together God's "revealed" will and His "hidden" will in a way that shows His great, merciful heart. He ordains the crushing of His own Son to make it possible for wandering souls to return. Apart from this, our return would be impossible and His revealed will (His command for all to repent) could never be obeyed by anyone. In His hidden will, SOME obey His revealed will. SOME do not, and in either case He is pleased and glorified. Obviously I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but I think this makes good sense of the matter (paradoxical as it is!).
I may write a blog post about this. It's a great topic, and I appreciate your interest in discussing it.
As to the meaning of "all" in I Timothy and II Peter, we can stack up a pile of good Calvinists on both sides. I think it all comes down to one's view of God and His will - both "revealed" and "hidden."
Blessings,
Derek Ashton
Post a Comment