For whom are we to pray? Why ought we to pray for them? Who does Paul mean when he says "all?" These are all great questions, and ones I intend to answer.
It's clear from verse 1 that we ought to pray for people who aren't Christians. "All who are in high positions" doesn't exclude any government official. "All" here means Christians, Mormons, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists, and all the rest. That we can agree on.
Paul goes on to tell us that we ought to pray for these non-Christians so that we may live a peaceful and quiet life. That's nice - but it's not all. He then says that it is pleasing to God himself, because God desires "all" people to be saved. That's the ultimate reason for us to pray for these people. If God loves all of mankind enough to want them to be saved, then we ought to love them enough to pray for them.
Paul's next aim is to defend his claim that God wants all to be saved, by reminding the reader that Christ gave himself as a ransom "for all."
What we see in these verses is three key instances of the word "all" (pas, G3956), which I have highlighted in bold print for emphasis. The first key instance is in the phrase "be made for all people;" the second in "desires all people to be saved;" and the third is in "who gave himself as a ransom for all." These instances of "all" are each critical to Paul's central point (that we ought to pray for all people, including government officials), and they are intimately linked and related to one another.
Christians stand enthusiastically united behind the idea that praying for "all" (v.1-2) tells us that we ought to care and pray for all people, but when we reach verse 4, the interpretations begin to diverge. Some say that "all" refers only to Christians in verse 4, others that it points to mankind as a whole, and still others say that it affirms that God wants all to be saved, but only in one sense.
Paul makes himself clear from the outset that he doesn't just mean Christians by "all," so the first interpretation isn't a good one. The second one is the one I espouse, and I'll explain it soon. The third is trickier, so I'll give it its own paragraph.
The claim is that God has two forms of wanting (or "willing") something. The first is that he wants it in the sense that he desires for it to happen, even if he only wants it a little bit, or if it contradicts a stronger desire he has that something else happens instead. The second is in the sense of God's intentions - what he actually plans to bring about. The argument in the case of this particular passage would probably be something along the lines of: "God desires in some sense that everyone would be saved, but not as much as he desires the damnation of some of us." This interpretation is no good either, because Paul's very next point is that Christ died as a ransom for all. If God had no great desire to save them and no intention of doing so, then why would Jesus die for all? Of course, it was that very question that led to the doctrine of Limited Atonement, the third tenet of TULIP. But who does "all" mean here?
If Paul means only Christians, then he has done a poor job of relating that idea. In fact, his composition of 2:1-6 is so bad that it appears to tell us the very opposite of what he meant - which forces us to bend over backward in order to represent what he really meant. Paul lays out, in a very orderly, logical fashion, who "all" means. "All" includes those who are not Christians (v.1-2). God desires the same "all" to be saved (I say "same" because Paul indicates no distinction and so probably intends no distinction) (v.4). Christ died for the same "all" (v.6). This passage appears to be telling us that Christ died for more than just Christians, desires more than just Christians to be saved and (deeply) loves more than just Christians.
Some might say that such an interpretation stands in opposition to the rest of Scripture - but the problem with this is that there is no direct Scriptural contradiction to what I have said, and in fact, several Scriptures directly agree with what I have said, and countless others indirectly.
A good example of such a passage is I John 2:2. I like this one in particular because it clarifies many of the others: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Some will say that John only means the Elect, since only their sins were paid for - however, it isn't that complicated. I say complicated instead of simple because the interpretation of this verse to mean only the Elect requires a complex array of connections and interpretations and long explanations and theories and such, whereas the interpretation that when John says "the world" he simply means "everybody" is a simple one to explain and support. No, it's not as wordy of a theory, but it is much stronger. Such an interpretation fits with a great many instances of the word kosmos in the New Testament.
When one reads passages in which Reformed Christians say that "world" means only the Elect, or only the lost world, many of them do not boast nearly as clean a distinction as they might think. In fact, those who read these passages without an assumption of TULIP will not often find that such distinctions are apparent at all. This is because, as I often say, "Limited Atonement is a philosophical conclusion, not a Scriptural one." How can I say this? I can say this because the Bible does not explicitly limit the Atonement in the way that Reformed Theology does. No one would read only the Bible and come to such conclusions. Rather, one must read works by such men as Sproul, Piper, Calvin or Augustine in order to place such "discoveries" into Scripture. Interestingly enough, Augustine, the earliest teacher of what we would now call "Calvinism" or "Reformed Theology," gleaned much of his interpretational style from Gnosticism, a mix-breed between Early Christianity and pagan Persian philosophy (manicheism). This philosophy was passionately resisted by the Church Fathers (of which group Augustine is not a member, because he was born much too late in history - "Church Fathers" is a term applied to men who studied at the Apostles' feet, not merely influential men from ancient Christian history) because of its teachings of determinism and Total Depravity. The Apostles' earliest students zealously ousted the Gnostics from their fellowships, refusing to allow their teachings to invade the minds of their young students.
John 3:17 is a good example of unclear distinctions. Someone who reads: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" may or may not come away with the idea that Christ came only to save some and not all (and most would probably say that "world" means "everybody" in this instance). In fact, this verse on its own tells us very little about who "the world" truly is. But because of the philosophical assumption that God always gets what he wants (Reformed Christians call this his "sovereignty"), and if God always gets what he wants, and not all are saved, then God doesn't want all to be saved, and if God doesn't want all to be saved, then it makes no sense for him to die for all, Reformed Christians believe that it tells us that Jesus died only for those whom he wanted to save, and no others.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, however, yields very different results. The idea of Limited Atonement, according to the philosophical process I have recited, is clearly based on the idea that God's will is always accomplished. But this idea is false, for two Scriptural reasons. Firstly, it is false because God obviously doesn't always get what he wants. The Bible tells us this plainly. God is often angry. If he is getting everything he wants, he has no reason to be upset. Being angry that you have gotten your way is not a sign of intelligence or wisdom - it's a sign of lunacy. Secondly, the Bible tells us clearly that God prefers to show mercy versus meting out judgement (Ez. 18:23; Mi. 7:18; Ps. 145:17), and yet he judges. Thus, his preferences are being violated: he is not getting what he wanted.
The philosophical basis for Limited Atonement is vacuous - it is no basis at all. Since Scripture is admittedly vague on this subject, but leans considerably toward "all" versus "some," it becomes apparent that Limited Atonement depends desperately upon that single philosophical assumption. Without that assumption, what are we left with?
Put simply, we are left with passages like I John 2:2, Romans 5:15-19 and I Timothy 2:1-6. Yes, most of Scripture is vague on the extent and effect of the Atonement, but these passages are not - and without the philosophical assumption that God always has his way, their meaning is quite clear: God loves all, paid for the sins of all, and wishes for all to be saved.
This is why we ought to pray for all people. Not simply because God asks that we love all people - but because he himself, as our example, loves all and wants them to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Praise God that He is powerful enough to pay for the sins of all, and strong enough to refuse those who refuse him.
No comments:
Post a Comment