What I Mean When I Say God Only Has One Will

   Reformed Christians are often asked if it's God's will to save everyone, or just Christians. The usual Reformed response nowadays is that in one sense, it is God's will for everyone to be saved, and in another sense, it isn't God's will for everyone to be saved. These are the "Two Wills of God." God has a 'decretive will' (the will that decrees, or sets the future in stone, so to speak), and he also has a 'prescriptive will' (the will that requires certain things of mankind - like the Commandments).

   The problem with this isn't that it seeks to defend God from a serious charge of sadism or tyranny (which is an admirable goal), but that it makes into a 'will' what isn't a will. God's expression of requirements toward us isn't itself a facet of his volitional faculties - it's a facet of his revelation, his self-expression to mankind. So the contrast isn't 'this' will of God versus 'that' will of God, but the 'will' of God versus the 'words' of God. That's the first problem.

    The second problem is that when most people ask Reformed Christians what God's will is, we often get a response about what God desires. "Yes, God wants everyone to be saved, in some sense, but in another sense he also wants some to go to Hell for his own ultimate glory." But that usually isn't what we mean when we ask what God's will is - we mean something much more simple than God's conflicting desires.

    [And even within the 'two desires' view, that only tells us what God craves, not what God wills.]

    For my Reformed brothers and sisters out there who may or may not be reading this, please pay attention to what I say next. I say this in as much love and grace as I know how:

    When we ask Reformed Christians what God's will is, we typically are not asking about what God desires - we're asking what God prefers. Yes, God may have different desires, but he's only going to pursue what he prefers. So when we ask: "Is it God's will to save everyone, or just Christians?" what we most often mean is: "Does God prefer that everyone be saved, or just Christians?" No matter your worldview, this question only has one answer. In Reformed Theology, God's preference is clear: God prefers to effectually reprobate and condemn most of mankind to Hell for a crime our first ancestor committed, and unconditionally elect and save some for Himself, and both destinies are subjects of God's pleasure, delight and glory. In my worldview, God's preference is also clear. God prefers to save everyone, but because of Man's rebellion, He cannot justly save all unless all repent. Not all repent, and so not all are saved.

    So I ask, for the sake of honesty, forthrightness and integrity, that Reformed Christians please hear us for what we mean. I acknowledge that every single individual might not mean this exact thing every single time he or she asks, but many times, this is the intention of the question, and I think it would greatly improve (and simplify) the dialogue between Reformed and non-Reformed Christians if Reformed Christians would acknowledge this intention when it occurs.

    

    And of course, one of the most dire problems with this contrast of God's intentions against his revelation is that God seems to be expressing a preference that human beings act in a certain morally upright way, and yet his internal preference (as enacted by his effectual decrees) is obviously that human beings live debauched lifestyles. This has multiple facets throughout the Intent vs. Revelation issue, but many of these facets come down to this question: If God prefers one thing, and then says he prefers the opposite, how is this not a lie? By definition, expressing something that isn't true is a lie. God decrees what he prefers. God has decreed that Man would murder, steal, rape, torture, and in every other way act wickedly. Therefore, God prefers that Man murders, steal, rapes, tortures, and in every other way acts wickedly, at least in such instances as these things occur.

    I truly don't mean any of this maliciously. My sincere hope is that this blog is helping non-Reformed Christians learn to defend against the 'Doctrines of Grace,' and that it will also help Reformed Christians begin to see that their doctrines are not as straightforward or well-based as they are being led to believe by their leaders. And of course, I also hope to improve the quality and peacefulness of the dialogues surrounding these issues. God bless you all!

The Great Fallacy of Reformed Theology

     Please understand: I do not mean that Reformed Theology in itself is a fallacy. The title is meant to express that I'm here to address the great fallacy of Reformed Theology - not the great fallacy that is Reformed Theology. That's not even sort of what I mean. Just wanted to clear that up.

     The great fallacy of Reformed Theology is the Negative Inference Fallacy. Let me give an example.

     Let's say I go to the mall with my wife on Monday, and then I tell the story on Friday. On Friday, I tell someone: "I bought myself an ice cream cone on Monday." If the person immediately assumes that I did not buy any ice cream for my wife that day, then they've committed the Negative Inference Fallacy. Why? Because my statement didn't include any negative qualifying statements, or what I call 'exclusive qualifiers.' What's an exclusive qualifier? An exclusive qualifier is a word or phrase that excludes something. Words and phrases like: "only," or "and only," or "but not."

     If I had said something like: "I only bought an ice cream cone for myself," or "I bought an ice cream cone for myself, but not for my wife," then the exclusive qualifiers make my meaning very clear. If I've said something more like this, then there's no fallacy in wondering why I only bought ice cream for myself, because my qualifiers make it explicitly clear that that's what I did. But assuming that by saying a simple statement like: "I bought myself some ice cream," I really mean: "I bought ice cream for myself, and only myself," is a fallacy, because the hearer has inferred a negative statement from a positive statement. You can't logically infer what someone hasn't done by hearing what they have done.

     So, how does this apply to Reformed Theology? John 10:11, Isaiah 53:12b, and Acts 20:28 are the clearest passages I've ever seen used to prove Limited Atonement. I'll list the ESV quotations of the verses:

     John 10:11 - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
     Isaiah 53:12b - "He poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."
     Acts 20:28 - "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

     Therefore, because these passages only mention Christians, Christ died only Christians and not for anyone else. But is that right? Look again - there are no exclusive qualifiers here, not in any of even the clearest passages used to prove Limited Atonement. (If there are any that are clearer, more explicit, or that include exclusive qualifiers, that I've missed, PLEASE do cite them in the comment section. I would love to study and discuss any such passages.) Why is this a problem? Well, there's a twofold problem here: 1) In order to infer exclusivity into these passages, you have to do so on a philosophical basis, and not an exegetical one (at least in terms of these specific passages), since these are the very passages used to prove the thing that's being inferred, and yet they don't actually exclude or negate anything, and 2) The rest of Scripture is not neutral - many other Scriptures use very inclusive in talking about the Atonement. A few examples are I John 2:2, I Timothy 2:1-6 and Romans 5:18.

     I John 2:2 - "He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world."
     I Timothy 2:6 - "[Jesus] gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
     Romans 5:18 - "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

     I know some will disagree with my interpretation of these three verses, but if the 'Limited Atonement' passages have no exclusive qualifiers, then we have to go with the plain reading of these texts. If John 10 says Christ dies for the sheep, and Romans 5 says Christ dies for the whole world, then we shouldn't take "many" to mean "only some, and not others." In other words, we shouldn't interpret the clear "all" in light of unclear "many," but vice versa, we ought to interpret the unclear "many" in light of the clear "all."

     Now, I don't mean that "sheep" is unclear. Jesus made his specific meaning for the particular purpose for which he was speaking that day very clear - my point in saying these passages are unclear is that they don't use exclusive language, they don't use exclusive qualifiers. But not only does Scripture not affirm this exclusivity, and not only does it say "all," but we have some Scriptures which employ inclusive qualifiers in talking on the Atonement ("not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" I Jn. 2:2)
   
   Let me offer you an analogy: On Sunday, 285 people show up to my church, and I buy ice cream for people that day at church. On Monday, I tell Bob that I bought ice cream for everyone my Sunday School class. On Tuesday, I tell Mary that I bought ice cream for all of the children who came to church on that Sunday. On Wednesday, I tell Kevin that I bought ice cream for everyone who came to church that Sunday. Each time, I've been talking about the exact same Sunday.

   Now for the million dollar questions: Do these three accounts of me buying ice cream contradict one another? Do these three accounts require any complex interpretations or explanations in order to harmonize them? Out of 285 people who showed up to church that Sunday, then according to my various reports on my ice cream purchase, how many of those people did I buy ice cream for?

   I have a feeling most of you out there think the answer is pretty obvious. If I bought ice cream for only my Sunday School class, then there's a serious problem with the claim that I bought ice cream for the children, let alone the entire congregation. But if I bought ice cream for the entire congregation, then that would naturally include my own Sunday School class, as well as all of the children who came to church that day. It makes sense of all the accounts, with no hangups. We think with this kind of logic all the time.

   Where then is the snag with John 10:11 and I John 2:2? Well, logically, there is no snag. If Jesus died only for Christians, then the claims of I John 2:2, Romans 5:18-24 and I Timothy 2:1-6 are pretty major snags. But if Jesus died for the sins of the whole human race, past, present and future, then that would naturally include all Christians.

   [For my Reformed brothers and sisters, if a question along the lines of "If Jesus died for the sins of the lost, then why do they still go to Hell?", then please see my earlier post: If Jesus Died for All, Why Hell?]

   The great fallacy of Reformed Theology (or TULIP), then, is the Negative Inference Fallacy. Biblically, logically, it's clear that Christ died for all. Biblically, the facts lean heavily toward an Atonement of universal scope. Logically, Christ's atonement for sins does not in itself save anyone, because that simply isn't the nature of sacrifice. Did his atonement save us? Absolutely - just not on its own. Saying that the Atonement saves us is like saying that the United States of America won World War II. Of course we won the war: we were the dominating force in that conflict, East and West alike - but we were far from alone, and so is the Atonement.

   I do not mean that people have to do anything to save themselves or earn anything. Paul makes it clear that belief and trust in Christ reconciles one to God, not works (Romans 9:30-31).

    Keep an eye out for this post's sequel: The Faulty Pillar. In that post, I'll show how and why the Bible's real teachings on the Atonement make TULIP an exegetical impossibility.

    But as a preview, I'll only be addressing the ULI. Why? Because I do think that all people are sinful, and that their sin corrupts their total, complete essence, so the T can stay - as long as it's not Total Inability. And as for the P, what people really seem to mean is that once you put your hand in God's, you might let go, but He won't - so once He's got you, He's got you.

    As always, thanks for reading, and keep an eye out for upcoming posts!