In the midst of the final week of classes this semester, I didn't get my post on John Piper's third chapter up. But I wanted to share a great quote from my pastor, Steve deNeff's sermon this past Sunday, the first of Advent.
"God would have come to earth even if Adam had not sinned, He likes to be with us so much."
There you have in a nutshell the difference between Piper's theology and Wesleyan-Arminian theology. In Piper's theology, it was not possible for Adam not to sin (non posse non peccare). God had Adam's sin prearranged. I remember a then Anglican friend of mine in England showing me a hymn about Adam's "blessed sin" that led the way for Christ's atonement.
But, as a colleague of mine pointed out, God enjoyed meeting with Adam and Eve in the Garden even before Adam had sinned. This is what it means for God to love the world--He genuinely loves the world. He genuinely wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). He does not just love humanity because of how much humanity loves Him. He loves humanity, period, and likes hanging out with us.
Now since the Reformed tradition is so fond of logic, there are only three options for the theological appropriation of 1 Timothy 2:4: God "wants to save all persons and [for them] to come to a knowledge of the truth."
a) This is hyperbole of some kind, an exaggeration. Somehow the words don't mean what they say. Everyone really only means those who count, those he has elected. Maybe we shouldn't even consider non-believers to be human at all?
b) Everyone will be saved, the universalist option. Barth famously said that he was not a universalist, but maybe God was. This, in my opinion, would be the most coherent Calvinist view, although I do not object as much to those Calvinists who believe it was possible for Adam not to sin (posse non peccare) as I do to the Piperish stripe.
c) God does not force humans to be saved but in some way, enables or allows them to have a say in the process. And since God is Sovereign, I assume He can do this if He wants, that He is powerful enough and "Man" enough to let humans play a role in the process.
Clearly the last option is the one that makes the best sense of 1 Timothy. Any other option involves shoving extraneous theological propositions down its throat.
Chapter 3 of The Future of Justification tomorrow...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that DeNeff's quote "God would have come to earth even if Adam had not sinned, He likes to be with us so much." was the core of Sunday's sermon... a powerful Wesleyan approach to Advent that I will never forget. Debating this single statement may be at the core of my difference with Piper et. al.
"Any other option involves shoving extraneous theological propositions down its throat."
Fair enough, but it seems like it might serve your readers to inform them what Reformed theology specifically does with 1 Timothy 2:4. The nature of God's will is a massive theological topic that stretches from Genesis to Revelation but seems to be missing in your post.
Tackling those "extraneous theological propositions" may be more fruitful if you want to serve and better inform your reader. What are these propositions? Why are they extraneous and not applicable? Where do they stray from Scripture?
I've read that the Reformed position is that 1 Timothy 2:4 means that God wants people from all categories to be saved (elect kings, elect whites, elect blacks, elect men, elect women, etc...), for there is one mediator between God and (elect) humanity...
That may be a position found in some strands of Reformed theology, but I'm not sure it's "the" Reformed position.
Even Piper (a relevant example) does not take that position. Nor do Storms, Ferguson, or Hendryx (just to name a few).
Again, I'd really like to stress this: the nature of the will of God is the topic at play here but not yet addressed. What does it mean when the Bible says (anywhere and everywhere) that God wills something?
Post a Comment