Pages

Thursday, May 04, 2006

They’re Creeping In! Pt. 2

(from my post from Strange BaptistFire).

We are continuing our series of responses to this article from BaptistFire. The first post can be read here. You might be wondering why I am spending so much time and space on what might seem to you as little details. The reason is three-fold:

1. Often, the BaptistFire articles are permeated with out-of-context Scripture citations used to support an assumed point. The misuse of God’s Word is no light matter, and therefore I seek to address extensively the Scripture citations utilized by these anonymous contributors. Obviously, not everything needs a long answer. But some things do.

2. The main purpose of this blog (Strange BaptistFire) is to serve those who might be “fence-sitters” when it comes to these issues. We do not want them to be deceived by the works put out on BaptistFire. We want them to be convinced of the truth of, among other things, the Doctrines of Grace. But we don’t want them to accept it blindly. We want them to be convinced on the basis of Biblical convictions.

3. I don’t want any of the unfortunately-anonymous-authors of BaptistFire to make the accusation that I have not handled their works with care. We at Strange BaptistFire do not view highly the material that is produced at the BaptistFire website. We believe it to be sub-scholarship. It is also divisive, accusatory, and unfair (if you do not think this is already evident, just continue to “stay tuned”). But we as Christians want to handle things honestly and fairly. We wish to treat them how they have not treated us.

Anyway, getting back to this article… I’ll recite the context for our next point:

Crept in Unawares …
Calvinists want to take over your Southern Baptist church
a BaptistFire special report
(Updated: Sept. 26, 2005)

What Calvinists Believe

Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone (contrary to John 3:16). They do not believe that God wants to save everyone (contrary to 1 Tim. 2:4). Most do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (contrary to 1 John 2:2). Not only are these doctrines contrary to the Bible they are contrary to what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe.

Here’s today’s point:

They do not believe that God wants to save everyone (contrary to 1 Tim. 2:4).

1. The question at first isn’t so much whether or not God wants to save everyone, but if God wants to save anyone. In synergism, we have a God that states that he wants to save everyone but makes no efficacious effort to save anyone. Synergism allows for the possibility of no one being saved. We begin to wonder if God truly wants to save every individual.

But Scripture does not pose such a scenario. Rather, we have a God who is concerned about his people, interacting with them redemptively, choosing to love them out of his own good pleasure alone, effectually accomplishing their salvation. We see Christ who loves his bride the church to the extent that he redeems her (Eph 5:25, John 17). We see the Father choosing a people for himself that will proclaim his excellencies (1 Peter 2:9, Eph 1:3). And we see the Spirit monergistically regenerating God’s elect and enabling them to believe (John 3, Eph 2:4-5). In the Bible, we see a monergistic salvation, and this is a monergistic salvation that is accomplished in a specific group. God mercies whom he wills and he hardens whom he wills.

2. My readers have seen me address 1 Tim 2:4 numerous times, and are probably tired of hearing (or… reading) me on the subject. But for those who are new readers, let’s take a look at this text. What is the context?

1 Timothy 2:1-7 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Let’s forget about verse 4 for a moment and pretend that we are reading this from the beginning for the first time. Paul urges us to pray for “all people.” What do you think he means by this? Paul, are you asking us to get out the New Testament phone book and pray for every single person in the world who has ever existed or will ever exist? Is that what Paul means? Well, we don’t have to guess for ourselves because Paul clarifies this for us: “for kings and all who are in high positions”. You see, the word “all” is a universal quantifier. We must not confuse extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension but a variable extension. The word “all” by itself makes no sense, that is, unless the referent is assumed on the basis of context. I could ask my co-workers, “How many of you guys want to go out to eat?” They might answer, “all.” Does that then mean that every single person in the world who ever existed or whoever will exist wants to go out to eat with me? No, I’m not free to make the referent anything I want. Context determines referent. Here, the extension (referent) was “my co-workers” or “of you guys.” All of my co-workers wanted to go eat. All of you guys wanted to go eat.

Thus, Paul qualifies his statement with the phrase “for kings and those in authority.” In other words, we are to pray for all kinds of people. Remember, we haven’t gotten to verse 4 yet. To us, it doesn’t exist. So far, honest Biblical exegesis has caused us to conclude that Paul is telling us to not limit our prayers to any one kind of person, but to pray for all kinds of people. Pray for kings, too. Don’t just pray for your best friend. Pray for your king. This makes sense, because kings, in a great way, can control whether or not we live peacefully (v. 2).

But what is a bigger reason? Even more so than our own peace, why should we pray for all kinds of people? Why should we pray for kings? Well, “this is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (v. 3). Why? Because he “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 4). There we have it. We shouldn’t limit our prayers to any one kind of person because God wants all kinds of people to be saved. He wants to save kings, too. He wants to save your best friend.

So, as far as I can see, we have two choices with this text: either dogmatically assume that the extension of the word “all” is “every single person who ever existed or who ever will exist,” or we can read this verse in light of its context and determine that God wishes to save all kinds of people. The first option poses some difficulties. First, it puts us in quite a predicament, for, being consistent, we are all disobeying the command to pray for every single person in the world. Synergists can’t have their cake and eat it two; they can’t argue that the extension for “all” in v. 1 is “all kinds of people” but then argue that the assumed extension for v. 4 is “every single person without differentiation.” Either verse 4 promotes synergism and we are all disobeying the command in verse 1, or the text is a consistent piece that tells us that God wants to save all kinds of people and that we should therefore pray for all kinds of people. Second, the synergist reading poses the problem mentioned earlier concerning the will of God. Does God really desire to save every single person? Why, then, is not every single person saved? Ultimately, we have a God that doesn’t will to save anyone to the extent that he’ll wholly and efficaciously accomplish it. If from their autonomy they generate faith, God is pleased. But otherwise he can’t really do anything about it. God’s will, therefore, becomes a matter of mere opinion, not something that has reality to its accomplishment.

But we shouldn’t stop here in the text. We can bring Paul’s line of thought all the way through:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

We have another universal quantifier in v. 6, with no stated extension. It is incorrect for us to assume that the extension is “every single person.” My example earlier with the co-workers shows this. If we don’t make such absurd assumptions when it comes to our every-day speech, why do we do it with the Word of God? Anyway, the point is that the extension (referent) must be determined by the context. We already have the context of v. 1-3, establishing the extension of all kinds of people. Does Paul abandon this extension? He certainly does not. Ponder v. 7: “for this reason I was appointed a preacher… of the Gentiles…” For this reason? For what reason? Well, Paul is obviously alluding to the information beforehand concerning God’s will and whom he desires to be saved. And the fact is connected with Paul’s Gentile ministry. God doesn’t just want to save Jews. He wants to save kings and Gentiles too! This is radical news to the first century mind. Paul was appointed to minister to the Gentiles because God wills that all kinds of people be saved.

Furthermore, consider some key terms of this text: mediator and ransom. Now, is Christ really the mediator between God and every single person (the supposed meaning of “all”)? Is he really their ransom? Or is he only a potential ransom or a potential mediator? You see, universalism is unavoidable apart from unadulterated eisegesis. It is only after eisegeting the word potential into this text that the synergist reading becomes comfortable. Therefore, the choice is between a non-contextual, eisegetical reading, and the Reformed contextual, exegetical reading.

We’ll move on to the third point in the next post!

Evan May.

2 comments:

  1. Evan, very well done. You have given me new insight into this verse, and I am a committed Calvinist! Thank you for your excellent exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You make a good point. While the Arminain claims he is not a universalist his handling of scripture inevitably leads to such a position. He asserts something that is completly at odds with what he professes. This is because the average Arminian does not even know what his doctrinal position really entails. BTW, I got a nick so now I won't be anonymous, just don't expect me to post to the blog much!

    ReplyDelete