The Dividing Line, 12/9/2008

For one, we have a phone caller. Let's talk with John. Hi, John. Hello.

Hello, sir. How are you doing, Dr. Weiss? It's an honor talking to you, sir. Yes, sir. What's up? Yeah, and dittos, or should

I say amen to everything you've said to this point? I'm sorry. Dittos, I think, may be copyrighted.

Sorry. Bad habit there. So I've actually never called into a show before, so this is my first time.

But I actually called about, and welcome to the Macintosh world, by the way. Oh, yes. I've loved it for a long time.

But I've called about 1 Timothy 2 and 4. I'm not a Calvinist, but I do enjoy your show. I've read several of your books.

And 1 Timothy 2 and 4 is actually one of the verses that would keep me from being a Calvinist. Well, a full five -point

Calvinist. I guess if you could describe what I believe just for your, I don't know if you've read Dr.

Leitner's book. What's it called? The subtitle is A Case for Unlimited Atonement. The title is

The Case for Unlimited Atonement. He identifies himself as a moderate

Calvinist. I may be what you would categorize as that. Yes, I'm familiar with the terminology. Okay.

So I don't know if we have the same definition, but we'll go with that for now. Well, if it's the same definition of moderate

Calvinist that Norman Geisler uses, that means an Arminian who's unwilling to call himself one. Okay.

Well, I don't believe it's, personally, I don't believe it's as simple as Calvinist and Arminian. I probably am somewhere in the middle, but maybe that's just because I haven't studied long enough to understand all the details, which is fully admitting to admit.

But in 1 Timothy 2 and 4, when it says the verse, who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, now

I understand that, let me see if I have your argument right before I go any further, because I don't want to misrepresent you, but you said that for kings and all and are in authority, you imported the verse from Titus in your book, and you said that this is how you know that he couldn't possibly be talking about all men, because Paul is talking about all types of men, and you're using the statement for kings and all that are in authority to show that.

Is that a correct understanding? I didn't go to Titus for that. That's 1 Timothy 2 .2. That's one sentence prior to 1

Timothy 2 .4. Okay, but I thought I remember seeing in your book where you had talked about when he talked to old men, younger men.

That's actually 1 Timothy 1, and the rest of 1 Timothy 2, it's the entire surrounding context of the exact phrase that is being used here, and what

I pointed out was that Paul is urging Timothy, first of all then I urge that in treaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, 1

Timothy 2 .1. What does that mean? Does that mean you're supposed to get out the phone book for Ephesus and start with the alphas and end with the omegas and pray for every single individual?

How does Paul define all men in 1 Timothy 2? In the sentence before this, he says, be made on behalf of all men for kings and all who are in authority.

Now, what are kings? Does that mean you're supposed to find out the name of every single king? Is this an individual thing?

Or are kings and those who are in authority kinds of men? They're types of men. That's exactly what he's saying.

For kings and all who are in authority so we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. My argument is that it's very, very clear that in the exact preceding sentence that produces,

I mean, one sentence produces the context for the following sentence. And if he's just used the exact phrase, all men, but he has not meant it in an individualistic sense.

In fact, I would argue that especially in the ancient world, it is very rare to have that kind of individualism.

When people talked about all men, they were talking about humanity as a whole, not every single individual within it.

That is a Western, modern way of thinking that I would challenge someone to demonstrate is consistent with the utilization it has in ancient documents.

But my whole point is that since Paul addresses groups of people, old men, young men, women, et cetera, et cetera, and here he specifically refers to kings and all who are in authority, that to then jump in between a period and the capital of the next sentence and say, well, okay, yeah, all men in 1st

Timothy 2 is used in one way, but then it becomes very different in verse 4, and then it goes beyond that to where you then turn

Jesus into the mediator between God and every single individual.

So now you have to force, if you're going to believe that 1st Timothy 2 .4 means that God desires the salvation of every single individual, not all men in the sense of kings and those in authority and slaves and landowners and people in the army and there's going to be

Christians from every walk of life. If you go, no, no, no, no, I want that to mean that even though God has not decreed the salvation of every individual, he desires the salvation of every single individual in that sense, which basically gets rid of the difference between the prescriptive will of God and the decree of God, well, then you've got a problem because you have to explain in the context how

Jesus mediates for the people who are in hell. What's going on there?

How does Jesus intercede between the Father and those who are in hell? Does his intercession fail?

Is his intercession insufficient in and of itself apart from addition of human works?

Do we have a division in the Godhead here where Jesus is trying to do something the Father isn't trying to do?

These are all questions I keep asking. Okay. Well, I'd like, can I back up for just a second?

Sure. That's a lot to throw at me at once. The only, the problem I've had with it, and it may just be me, of course, but when it says all men,

I don't think, I've never understood that as to pull out the phone book. I've heard Calvinist say that.

I've always understood that, that when you're praying for kings and that are all in authority, that the gospel would have free reign in a country, so to speak, or a land, that aren't you implicitly praying for all men because you're praying that the government would allow that the gospel would truly be preached to all creatures.

And that's kind of the way I've understood it. And let me make one more point before we go on, because you said quite a bit, and for kings and all in authority, the only problem

I've had with the interpretation is, to me, that's not all types of men. There's only really one type of men mentioned there.

Kings are simply a subgroup or all that are in authority. Right. Well, but the point is, he has specifically defined all men as groups, not as individuals.

And what you just said makes perfect sense, but again, it only proves my point that to read universalism into this, into verse 4, is to read it in a different way than you're reading verse 2.

Because you just said, well, you should be praying that we should have peace, be able to have the gospel, and things like that. All those things are true.

It was the kings and those who were in authority who were persecuting the Christians. Right. But his point is, God even has his elect amongst them, so you pray for all men.

You don't not pray even for those who are persecuting you. So you need to pray for the rich, you need to pray for the kings and those who are in authority, because God has his elect amongst all people.

But none of that is supportive of the idea that then verse 4 is meaning that there is no specific decree of salvation.

That's not what this is talking about in the first place. And secondly, it raises the specter of, all right, if you're interpreting

Paul consistently, then you can't interpret him in such a way as to make him contradict himself. Right.

We know what he teaches concerning mediation, or if he didn't write Hebrews, at least what the New Testament teaches concerning mediation and intercession, that the one who does this is able to save to the uttermost, because he ever lives to make intercession for those he's interceding for.

So if the all men of verse 4 is every individual person, then you have to be consistent and say that Jesus is interceding for every single individual person.

But if you say that, you're now stuck, because that intercession does not save every single individual person, unless you hold a position that has always been there, and we've always had to fight against it, and it's gaining popularity once again, and that is universalism.

The universalist... Well, I'm definitely not a universalist. I can say that the way I understand it. Yeah, but how would you respond to the universalist that would use that?

Well... Honestly, how would you respond to a universalist who says to you, well, look, you're right.

It's every single human being. Jesus therefore intercedes for every single human being. Jesus perfects all those for whom he dies.

He saves the uttermost, those for whom he intercedes, therefore, everyone's going to be saved. All you've got to do is spiritualize

Gehenna, and there's lots of ways that you can do that, and all you know. Well, I think it goes back to a lot of,

I guess, the fancy word is presuppositions, that you've come to at this point that we would probably disagree on, is why

I can't even... You know what I'm saying? It's hard to get common ground to argue from when I don't accept certain

Calvinist suppositions. Such as? Well, the fact that I believe that the Atonement was a provision that was made at the cross, that anyone who believed that their salvation is secure, that anybody that trusts in Christ is guaranteed to be saved, that salvation is a package, you get all of it at the moment you believe.

You have the sanctification, the justification, all that, and then the promise that you will be glorified, i .e.

eternal security. So, that's what I'm saying. I think Christ made a provision at the cross.

I don't believe he absolutely... I don't think we divide up the blood of Christ and say, well, his blood applies for this guy and not for this guy.

Now, that may be a misunderstanding on my part, but that's kind of the way I've understood it, and I don't see, biblically, unless you start jumping to philosophical conclusions,

I don't see how biblically you can say that Christ died for some and not others. And see, that's where we would disagree to that point, because it's kind of hard to argue the text.

Okay, so John, what you're saying is, Jesus' death makes us savable, but... Well, I've heard you say that a lot, and it does make...it

was a provision. It made people savable, but since we've seen that people are saved, we've had 2 ,000 years of that, then obviously

God started time knowing who would be saved through his foreknowledge.

And how does God have foreknowledge? Well, I've been reading on that, and I understand there's a determinist view, if I'm pronouncing that right, that God knows everything because he causes everything.

But I believe that God...I don't personally hold that view. I believe that God knows everything because he's

God, and I don't understand how he knows everything, and I don't think I ever will. Even in heaven, we may not understand how he knows the future, but we know that he does because the

Bible says he does. So when God challenges the false gods in Isaiah 41, and he says, tell us not only what's going to happen in the future, but also tell us what happened in the past, and why it happened.

If God did not decree the events in time, how could God know why it happened?

Well, that's just it. The Bible doesn't tell us how he knows. I don't believe it does. But I just told you that it says,

God himself says, that he knows the why. He is the creator of all things.

His whole point is that false gods don't have that knowledge because they're not the creator of all things. When the

Bible says that he has, in fact, has this eternal decree, he accomplishes all his holy will.

Whatever he desires, he accomplishes in heaven and earth. When he says he works all things after the counsel of his will, doesn't all of that point us to the eternal decree of God?

So I guess this comes to, I guess I'm chasing a rabbit trail now, but this comes to another question I would ask you then. To what degree does

God control everything? I read in Calvin's Institute, I have the two -volume version of that, his chapter, or if you could call it that, on sovereignty.

And he seems to give the idea that God is making everything happen. And I guess my first question to the

Calvinists would be, making everything what happen? Is he making sin happen?

I don't understand. I guess I would like to hear the distinction there. When you say God's in control of everything, of course

I agree with that, but I guess I have a different meaning of the word control. Yeah, I'm not sure that you would agree with that.

I mean, there's a meaningful use of the phrase, the sovereignty of God, and there's a meaning that has no meaning to it at all.

And the Westminster Confession of Faith, London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689, have all said the same thing.

Yeah, it does. God is in control of all things, his decree determines all events in time.

And that... What, even sin, I guess? I guess that's my question. Of course. Of course. Of course. Of course. How can that not be?

I mean, if you don't have that, then you mean God created, he knew there was going to be evil, and he has no purpose for any of it.

Well, no, I believe he has a purpose, I just don't believe he causes it. Well, no, there's a difference between him causing it and him using means to bring it about.

Okay, okay. You need to understand the difference between, look at every single instance where the

Bible talks about God and an action that is evil. In Genesis chapter 50, verse 20, when

Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers, that is a sinful act on their part, and yet very clearly the

Bible tells us God was behind that, God brought that action about, God had an intention in the selling of Joseph into slavery in Egypt, and that was to save many people alive.

I agree with that, and I think in the life of Joseph that's very true. But wait a minute, do you really agree with that?

Because that means, is it possible that the Joseph brothers could have not done that? No, it's not possible, it could have been any other way, but in real time, it could have been to us.

I think the foreknowledge of God has two perspectives, it has his and ours, because whether or not I make it home tonight,

I have no idea, in my mind that's chance, but in the mind of God it's a foregone conclusion, he already knows.

Does he know that because he decreed it, or does he know that because he took in passive knowledge?

He creates the universe, he rolls the cosmic dice, he looks at it and goes, oh, that turned out good,

I'll keep it. Well see, I don't think it's an either or, I think it's a little both. I think God has decreed specific things, and I think there's other things that he allows to happen, because he set the laws of nature and such in motion.

I think he did work specifically to give Joseph that dream, knowing what he was going to do, and had the whole plan, but does that mean he did that for every single person that was living on the earth at that time?

I'm not sure I could say that. But think with me for just a moment. Since all events in time are related to one another, there is a fabric of time here.

This smallest little thing can have profound results. You've heard about just so much as a grain of sand in someone's boot can determine the entire battle in entire nations and everything else.

I honestly believe that you want to hold a middle position, I understand that. I don't believe that that middle position is coherent or biblical, but you want to hold it.

But here's the problem. I don't think there's any place on your side of the fence that is consistent until you land in open theism.

Because you see, you keep saying, well, I don't know where we're going to know that. The open theist says, oh yes, we do know that.

If God does in fact know the future, then there are no free actions of man. And therefore,

I'm going to deny that God does know the future, and I'm going to emphasize the absolute freedom of man, therefore the open theist doesn't even believe

God knew you would exist when he created the world, because you are the result of many free choices.

And if free choices are going to be free, then they can't be known to God. I mean, if God knows exactly what route you're going to take home tonight, and knows exactly where a truck is going to hit you and end your life, then that's not a free choice on your part.

You're going to do exactly what God's knowledge has always known you're going to do. And so they say, that's not freedom. And so they get rid of it.

And you may reject that, but upon what basis? Because all you're telling me is, yeah,

God has foreknowledge, but either that foreknowledge is due to the fact that his decree formed the very fabric of time.

The only other option, my friend, is that he creates without a decree and then takes in passively.

He observes the creation and goes, oh, that's how it turned out. And think about what that means you're saying about God.

Because no matter what, you have to deal with the fact that God created a world that has just as much evil in it as I do.

I say that God has a purpose for every single bit of it. And you can't say that because you don't have a decree that determines the existence of events in time.

So you've got a God that creates all these things, has all this evil take place, and has no purpose in it. How is that an advantage?

I have to wonder. Well, again, I don't know what the advantage would be other than the fact that I believe it, personally,

I believe it is the most consistent biblical view that God in time does step in and do things that he is determined to do.

And in other points, just for example, the other million people that lived on the earth in the time of Joseph, pretend there's a group of 50 people that live apart from the main,

I guess you could call civilization, and they never hear about the God of Israel, they never hear about Yahweh, the man commits adultery, another man kills him, and they all die, and they're all apart from the will of God and all that.

I don't understand how that being decreed by God is any more glorifying to him, and I realize we're getting into philosophy now, not so much biblical text, but can you understand maybe my point?

I don't understand how that's working in an eternal decree of somehow. Well, the fact that we do not have knowledge at this time of exactly why

God has done everything doesn't change the fact that he says he works all things after the counsel of his will.

You're limiting all things. I don't believe that there's any basis for limiting all things. I mean, think about it.

Think how many free will choices, quote unquote, went into the Joseph story. What if Potiphar's wife hadn't chosen to do what she did?

Joseph can't do the things God wants him to do, his plan gets messed up. What if Potiphar knew that his wife was a bit of a loose woman, and he doesn't pursue anything with Joseph, and he doesn't get thrown?

What if the thing with the baker didn't happen, it didn't shoot? I mean, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of, quote unquote, free will choices that all came into Joseph being in the position that Joseph was in.

All of them had to be under part of God's decree, and many of them were sinful. Think about the same thing in Isaiah chapter 10 when

God brings the Assyrians against Israel to punish them. There are thousands of people involved with that, and yet he then punishes the

Assyrians for the attitudes of their hearts. Is it possible that the

Assyrians could have chosen not to be used by God as the instrument of his punishment against his people?

They could have chosen to go someplace else, and God's left looking for someone else to bring as punishment against the people of Israel.

Is God's plan such that he says, I'm going to punish my people Israel in such and such a year, and then, oh man, they made a free will choice, and now

I'm going to have to do it some other way. You say no because you give to God foreknowledge, but that means that they don't have a choice.

When God in Isaiah says that Cyrus is going to let the people of Israel go, could

Cyrus, the day he woke up to give the decree to let the people of Israel go, trip over a toy in the royal bedroom, find the toy had been made by a

Jewish person, and therefore decide not to let the people go? No, because then prophecy itself would collapse.

So does Cyrus have a choice in this matter? Well, okay, from the perspective of God, no, but from Cyrus' perspective in real time, living a real life, yeah, he doesn't know what's going to happen, so from his mind he is making a choice.

I agree. But in God's mind, the choice was never there, because I guess the real difference in what we believe in would be in God's view,

God already knew what he would do, but I don't think God was making him do it. But again, if you say

God knew it rather than God chose to do it, you are limiting

God's actions to what he sees in time. I say to you, that's not the biblical position.

God does what he does because he has decreed to do so, and that is reflected in the actions of time.

Very different perspectives, because in one, God can be glorified at the end.

When we look at the end and we see how all of this came together, we can glorify him because it's his purpose. If God created without a specific decree that included these things, then why are we glorifying him at the end?

He just simply threw the cosmic dice, it turned out alright, what's the reason for glorifying him for that? Right.

Well, very good discussion, I'm getting some insights that I didn't get from reading your book, and that's not a downplay on your book at all,

I'm just saying that talking with you has really helped me parse some of this out. Have you seen my book,

God's Sovereign Freedom? Or what's it got, God's Sovereign Grace? No, I've got the God That Justifies the

Sola Scriptura book and the Potter's Freedom. Okay. Remember, the Potter's Freedom, I'm responding to Geisler, so a little bit of a limitation there.

But I have a book called The Sovereign Grace of God, it used to be called God's Sovereign Grace and its title got changed without really my approval.

But it's available on the website, and I know in debating Calvinism, what are you signaling at me?

Oh, you probably need to take a break. No, if you stay online, Rich is going to get your address and he's just going to send you a copy of the book.

Oh, thank you. And actually, I've read debating Calvinism, by the way. Okay, good. Well, I know that I did address some of the issues,

I tried to challenge Dave. It was a while back, so I may not remember all of it. I couldn't blame you if you couldn't follow it, because the very thing

I told the publisher was going to happen, did happen, and that is if the publisher did not hold

Dave to one topic per section, the book would become a jumble of things, and that's exactly what happened.

Well, I think also when, I thought it was a good book, personally, but when Calvinists and non -Calvinists argue, a lot of times they're arguing from different premises, and sometimes we can miss each other, not to say that we've done that, but I've noticed that happens a lot, and it's hard to argue, a

Calvinist and an Arminian, I don't see how they could have good, meaningful arguments unless they're both willing to really, truly see the other person's side and understand the premise that they're arguing from, because...

Well, I think we can have a good discussion if we stay, first of all, yes, if both understand what the other one's saying, that helps out a lot, and I'll be honest with you, that's a major problem.

I do understand what those who oppose me are saying. I really do, but very rarely do

I get that in reverse, and I've appreciated your spirit in this and being able to hear that. But we do have a common ground to go to, it's the

Word of God, and I think if people will look at what has happened, especially in the modern period, in regards to Arminian exegesis of the

New Testament, they're going to be a little bit shocked to see how often they end up going liberal as to accepting the idea that the

New Testament as a whole does present a coherent truth of God, and I think it's the

Reformed folks who've been pretty consistent in holding the very high view of Scripture at that point. But anyways, you've gotten a lot of other folks calling in, so that's a good thing, and I appreciate the phone call.

Stay on. I'm going to put you on hold. Stay on there, and Rich will get your name and address and send that book out to you.