John 3:16 Conference at First Baptist Woodstock
Nov 6th, 2008 by Nathan White
**UPDATE 11/7/08 – 8pm**
I must say, I didn’t bother to take this conference too seriously up to this point, but with Dr. David Allen’s session on Limited Atonement, some serious accusations have been thrown out. One of which:
To which Phil Johnson and Dr. White promptly responded here and here. Well let me just say: may God bless you James White as you labor to spread the gospel across the ocean while being misrepresented at home. We’re behind you, brother. Take courage, my friend. Wow. I must say, I am deeply saddened by what has been proclaimed in the last few sessions of this conference. The men seem sincere and even sound in their faith, but to see them so firmly defend error is just plain depressing. The worst part about it: they have no idea of the ramifications and implications that their error has and will cause. It is certainly no small matter. May God show mercy to them, and especially to all who hear. |
A few months back I mentioned that my former church, First Baptist Woodstock here in the metro Atlanta area, is hosting a ‘John 3:16′ conference where the specific doctrines of Calvinism are going to be examined by a number of speakers. Jerry Vines and Johnny Hunt are obviously the big names on the ticket, and both of these men have a history with their strong disagreements with Calvinism.
But in my last post I offered a few thoughts and concerns regarding this conference, and I (and others) await to see whether there will be any serious interaction with scripture by those who oppose the doctrines of grace. Let’s hope and pray that the rhetoric is low and the digging into scripture is preeminent!
I will not be attending the conference, but my good friend Andrew Lindsey is there, and will be ‘live-blogging’ the conference via Tim Challies blog. You can follow his progress over at Challies.com, and Andrew’s first post can be found here.
Also, another good friend of mine, ‘johnmark‘, will be live-blogging the conference as well.His first post on the subject can be found here.
Lastly, I would like to open up this comment thread for any and all thoughts on the conference, no matter what your position. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
The comment by Allen was documented by both johnMark and Andrew. I would like to see a transcript or another independent witness. The other statements recorded by these men do not seem to differ from earlier things that Allen has said.
For a primer on Allen’s talk you can go here. From the the notes of the live bloggers, it sounds pretty much like the same thing.
Amen to your prayer. As I have pointed out elsewhere we are naive to think that the opposition party wants peace. This conference, regardless of the closing, was billed as a response to the BB conference not a furtherance of it. It was meant to form the basis and set them agenda for the machinery of a purge of Calvinism from the SBC. I said that if Caner shows up, it means the worse. Caner has a visceral hatred of Calvinism. And the fact that Vines saw fit to honor him by letting him pray for the conference does not bode well.
It seems to me that the Calvin doctrine of predestination dilutes John 3:16.
How so? Seems to me as though the verse has a clearer and more precise meaning within the context of the whole consel of God and a Biblically based system of Theology as opposed to its common useage out of context (on banners at football games and in the hands those unwilling to scratch below the surface-Vines, Hunt, Stanley). I see your comment, as presented and w/o explanation, as cart-before-the horse. Perhaps you would elaborate?
Thanks, and blessings!
PP
David,
I have seen you leave this same statement at other blogs without any other comments. Please explain your position.
Blessings
Jeff
This seems like much unnecessary rancor between Christians over things no one really is going to fully comprehend. To say God commands (“wills or demands”) all men to repent while simultaneously NOT willing all men to repent seems to be a core Calvinist doctrine, but if you can wrap your mind around those two mutually exclusive properties, congratulations. I can’t. A corollary to this doctrine is the doctrine of a “two-willed” God who has a declared will and a “secret” will that fights against the things He has openly demanded.
These things are not within the grasp of my mind, and I can’t imagine why they should be considered defining characteristics of a “true believer”.
Anonymous Jim-
Because you cannot understand, no one else can? Seems to me I have heard that before, the atheist says, “Well I don’t know God, therefore no one can.”
Let me ask you about the two-willed God. So that we are on the same page, when I willed to go to the University, I wished that I could have continued on. My desire was to enter ministry and so I willed to get my undergraduate and then my masters and pursue a ministerial license to do what I love best. Now, even though I had all those desires, only one of them has come about. Would you call me double willed because I desired some things but was not able to will them done? I have always wanted to be a professional guitarist and performer, but never achieved my will and am now too old for it even to be a possibility. But, I still want it but no matter how I will it, it will not be.
The words desire, want, wish, will, command, even love are all interchangeable in Scripture and take on meaning depending on context.
We Calvinists define will as Scripture does, by context. It ranges from desires unrealized to decrees which are always. We might make a will and will that it is executed, but the will of executing it is not in our power to will, for we die and another does as he will. The question is, can God only do less than man? That is, if we can have two wills, multiple wills, why not God? If we can differentiate between desires and wants, and abilities and accomplishments, and will and will, why can’t God? When you used will, you equivocated, but just as the terms above can be interchangeable, they are not always the same thing. You might say tomorrow I will, but until you do, you have not willed it. How is it that you justified your usage of will in your comment?
Do you believe that God knows the future? How? Is God in control? He wills but does not bring it about, but another wills it, yet you rightly affirm there is only one will? What is possible for man, is no less possible for God, is it, except that God cannot tempt sin nor be tempted by it? Do you think that God wills sin? If so, how does that comport with God’s demands it not be so? If God demands you be holy, and he does, how can it be that you are not? Just who is willing that? You? Or do you have your will and God has his, but at the end of the day it is his will that is done? Are there two wills and not just one? Do you determine the future? Then at the end of the day it is his will and not yours that is done? Hmmm… Can you tell us what the future will be please? Will you sin next, or no? Or, shouldn’t you say if God wills, it will be done? For as it was in the beginning so it shall be in the end. If you cannot will the future, why does sin happen? Why do you sin if it is not God’s will? But, if he does not temp you, and he does not, from where arises sin? Do you will it so that what he wills it as future so that it comes about? Or, did he will it, so that you will it, so that in the end it is the will of God which is accomplished? If it is not his will which is being done, aren’t you then opposed to his will? If it is not your will, for you do not know what tomorrow might bring, why do you sin, seeing that you do not will it? You don’t want to sin do you? Then why do you since you will it not, and yet it is?
You may not be able to understand it, but isn’t it a bit arrogant to claim that since you don’t, it cannot be known? Let me ask you, before you believed, that is before you knew God, it was possible for you to, wasn’t it? Or, how else would you know? Simply because you did not at one time know, did not make it impossible that others knew, did it? Or, how would they have ever told you? And because you did not know, doesn’t mean that you do not now…or does it?
So, the question: is your knowledge of this mystery God given knowledge, or is the Calvinist’s? And if you cannot comprehend it, how do you know others cannot? It is true that you sin and it is not the will of God, but at the same time you do not will the future, so it cannot be your will. If you are saying that God has not given you knowledge and therefore you know that others have not been given it, do you not lie? Or, are you saying that God has given you the knowledge of what you cannot know? You have claimed to know that which cannot be known. It is interesting, isn’t it?
Kinda stuck, huh Jim? Scripture declares: My children are destroyed for the lack of knowledge. So Jimmy boy, it is no waste of time to come to the fulness of the knowledge of the Son of God.
No one has said this but you. But because your mind does not grasp it, doesn’t make you the standard, either.
Jim,
Interesting and candid comment. Thanks for being transparent.
Your comment reflects the thinking that many of us used to have,typically coming from churches where we were told what the Bible said and what we needed to believe. Once I realized that what I heard from the pulpit couldn’t be readily reconciled with Scripture, I had to dig deeper. The deeper I dug, the more problematic the preaching became.
These guys and gals are not rancorous but rather impassioned to find the truth and understand it. Some other folks just haven’t gotten to that place on the journey. That’s okay, but marginalizing, minimizing or putting down this exercise in deeper understanding is not a helpful response. See, when you comment as above, the screamingly obvious reply is, “so, reality is limited to and by YOUR ability to comprehend it?” Of course, you know that’s not true, but it points out the hole in your comment.
The better approach, if indeed you want to fnd out the Truth of Scripture for yourself, is to seek clarification and make genuine inquiry on aspects of this discussion that elude you (and me and anyone else). You’ll be surprised at how gracious and accomodating an answer you’ll get to such an inquiry from this crowd and quickly see that ‘rancor’ is only applicable to outside rabble-rousing. Join in and see what happens. You’ll be welcomed, I’m sure!
PP
Thomas, I’m hardly so foolish as to think that there is no one more intelligent than I. Some things I can comprehend at only high-levels of abstraction (such as the microchip and how common elements like sand can be used to transmit electrical signals), but that doesn’t mean I believe there aren’t others who have a firmer understanding of these things at a material level.
In terms of theology, I think it is permissible to allow for the use of language that can be true in one sense while not true in another. It is fine to say that one “ascended into Heaven” while acknowledging that they did NOT rise vertically from the Earth on the y-axis from the vantage point of the speaker. This is a truth stated as metaphor. I also agree that an author may imply a deeper or more complex meaning than the initial words may appear to mean at first glance. Perhaps some of this falls into that category where I am simply not understanding the full doctrine.
At the same time, you must concur that two mutually exclusive statements as understood in their simplest and truest sense cannot co-exist. You cannot say that “y=5″ and “y 5″ (or “y != 5″) simultaneously – so long as “=” does not translate to “like” or “resemble”. Otherwise, words have lost ALL meaning entirely and you cannot rely on them to reveal the truth about anything.
So let’s discuss God’s “will” for a moment and how that is defined. I’m sure you would agree that the universe is as it is by the active will and decree of God. Everything that has occurred, is occurring and will occur is the result of a sovereign God who has willed every last movement of dust. He utters a word, and it is. He moves, and so it is. To suggest that He can act and the universe NOT be moved is to deny His sovereignty, by your own definitions and theological framework. There is no “alternate universe” where things would reflect life as He really willed it for if there was, we’d be living in it!
Now, you seem to be suggesting that this will can co-exist with another, equally sovereign will of His that commands something other. He in essence “commands x and not x”. If that’s what you mean, then yes, I’m not getting it because His command of “x and not x” must both happen. As we both know, His will as it is “revealed” is not occurring in this universe. If He willed it, it would be. In other words, His revealed will is not really His will according to your own definitions, and calling it “His will” does not make it so. Revealed? Yes. Will? Hardly. I don’t know what it is, but it does not reflect His will according to your definitions.
So let’s say that the revealed will does not truly reflect the decreed will. I would think you’d agree with this, yes? If so, then think about this: you’re saying that there is a discrepancy between life as God actually wills it and life as God has told men He has willed it. To call His decreed will His “secret Will” implies that He has masked the truth with untruth.
Isn’t this just a very elaborate way of labeling God a liar?
Jim,
I think I see your point, but I think the answer is that biblical paradoxes are not necessarily contradictions. Here’s another example of a paradoxical question for you that may help clarify this theological conundrum: “Did God ‘will’ that Adam disobey (sin) in the Garden of Eden, or did God will that Adam not sin?” Or, was it both?
Jim–
You have posted here before under ‘James’ correct? I do recall you going by both names if I’m not mistaken.
But I understand your objections to the ‘two-wills of God’ thing; Let me try to explain again to you so that you properly understand:
-God ‘wills’ whatever He decrees, and He decrees everything on earth, per the crystal-clear testimony of scripture (don’t make me list all the references again –I’ve pointed you to them before with no response).
-However, we as humans do not see His decrees or the logic behind them. For example, on November 6th we had no idea whether McCain or Obama would be elected the following day, yet, we know from scripture that God had ordained it to be long ago.
In fact, consider Ecclesiastes 3 –
So, God wills that we do not know or understand all the He does, and part of His purpose in doing so is so we FEAR Him.
-But the point of disagreement here is what we *do* know about God, and what we do know about God is revealed in His word. There we find His will stated again and again. And following our presidential example, we know for certain that God hates murder. Yet, for some reason, He appointed a ‘king’, President-elect Obama, who fully and unequivocally supports the murder of unborn children. So what’s up with that? Is God conflicted and/or contradicting in His ‘will’, or does He even have control in the first place?
Thus, I will again point out to you that you must embrace a god who either does not know the future, a god who cannot control the things on earth, or a god who chooses not to control the things on earth (thus undermining Him knowing the future), all of which are heresies in their full form.
Yes, God ‘wills’ that all men would be saved in the sense that He commands His gospel to be proclaimed to all, and in the sense that He does not take unrighteous pleasure in punishing the wicked. However, God does not ‘will’ that all men be saved in the sense that He made certain that they will be. And to say that He could save all men but chose not to, is the same as saying He doesn’t will it to begin with. Thus, we are in agreement, you and I
Anonymous Jim-
No. The revealed will does exactly reflect the decreedal will. What is true is that God has commanded in one nuance of the word all things whatsoever come to be, in another nuance God has will that happens through definite means. In another nuance God has commanded obedience to the law, and in another, God has willed that that law be violated through the actions of secondary causation.
It is not that God has willed two oppositional decrees. All decrees of God are without contradiction. He has will, one will, but in that he has willed that it comes about by the various means that he has also willed. So then, he can command and it not be obeyed. That is, his revealed will is that you will sin, even though he has commanded that you do not. You cannot deny that is true without making him a liar and if you say that you can live without sin, you are a liar. This fulfills his decreedal will, “Let God be true and every man a liar.
In contemplating a “secret will”, if you mean that there are things we cannot know, I fully agree. However, what we know we know from what is revealed but it is not his commandments alone but from all of Scripture. It reflects and informs us about the decrees but does not necessarily reveal all of it. Otherwise, as I said, you would know the future which you do not. It is hidden, ergo, “secret.” The secret things belong to God, Scripture is unequivocable. The things that have been revealed belong to us but what is revealed will never contradict what is hidden.
The revealed will does exactly reflect what can be known of the decreedal will. In inferring contradiction you err. Your error, as I noted before, is that you do not nuance the meaning of will as Scripture does. He is clear, that He has commanded:
In this case it is a doxological form but it is in the imperative. It is a form of praise found throughout Scripture. The verbs are in the aorist tense. The coming is in the perfect second aorist reflecting that which was perfected forever, the be done, is like it but is an ongoing action begun in the past perfected with the connotation of continued perfection in the present and in the future. The second clause is repetitive and is a common literary devise that makes the first emphatic. On earth it happens exactly as it has always been in heaven. It is this: What has been commanded is eternal in the heavens and is being done exactly as such in the now here on earth. And, because of that we can be assured of God’s providential care.
The middle petitional phrases are also in the imperative with the exception of the forgiveness clause, but it too, because of the context is filled with the imperative. “Give us” means, “You command it and it is done”. We request it true enough, but that is because God has promised that he will provide and that provision is based in the eternal decree. Jesus said that it is not merely bread of men’s making but of the word which sustains us and God has said that he will not abandon us. The conditional follows upon what has been decreed, also, and if we forgive then he forgives. Even our unforgiveness finds its genesis in the first doxology, a commandment. Now, from that we see it works out in the real what he means. That Jesus was abandoned on the cross, that evil did happen to him, that he forgave even if he needed no forgiveness, and that that was all bread which comes down from above. God has done all. He has made vessals for honor and some for dishonor. Some fulfill the commands according to the righteousness that is perfected in Christ, others not. Neither fulfill the righteous commandments of God as inherent in themselves, however, for in reality, only one is Good. Meaning that only God can do the will of God. Then, in the incarnation we have the perfect commandment being fulfilled by the God/man and not a mere man, and he does so because he does only what he sees his Father doing. He does his Fathers will and his will alone and he does his own. He is the summation of all creation in that sense. All others he has created to carry it out, be it to resist his law, i.e. commandments, or to do them. Still, no one does anything except by the will of God.
So, we have this. In the conditional clause we understand that God is working in us also, conditionality. Yet, because of the first, what is set in heaven cannot be changed for God himself does not change. To that add, that it is God who works in us the willing and the doing of his good pleasure and still holds us accountable. And, that the flesh wars against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that you do not do your own will. That God can and does carry out those things contrary to his revealed commandments, is not double-minded, for he has created those who will to do other than what he commands. That is without question. And, they fulfill the decrees perfectly. God has only one will, but within that, wills many things diversely to fulfill it.
This is not a contradiction. There are not two wills in God in the primary sense that you have assumed. And when we speak of differences in the wills of God we do not see them as attaining to the decreedal will as equipotential wills that appearing contradictory can be fulfilled and not fulfill the decree. The derivatives of God’s decreedal will are not contradictions but compliments. Only one can be the decreedal will supra and that is as it is in the beginning, “Your Kingdom come, your will be done.”
So, when God wills that all men be saved, he is not from all time saying that his decree is universal salvation of all individuals. Nor is it necessary that it means he has intended but cannot fulfill. It is nuanced with the understanding from Scripture that all men will not be saved. Therefore, all men has another connotation than each one individually from all time.
So no, as above, this is an incorrect analysis. This is your relationship to the Scripture, not mine. God does as God wills and his commands are carried out to the letter. Your problem, in particular, is trying to make all willings equal as if there were no differentiation between the way and the means to get there. God’s decreedal will never fails, but our wills are fallible, and he has willed that will never fail to be so until that day when we are perfected. Even at that, man’s infallible will will not be grounded in the creature, but the creator. For now, God alone is true and every man a liar, just as he has commanded they be. At the same time, his will as to the law is perfect and good. The proof of that is Jesus Christ who was and is the revealed will of God for righteousness, the perfection of the law. We, on the other hand, are not. And Scripture declares that he has perfectly willed in righteousness that we are made according to the potter’s freedom and what he chooses to do with that which belongs to him will always perfectly obey his will.
Absolutely, but no one except you has suggested that there are two equally positioned, mutually exclusive truth claims. In simplicity of mind men necessitate what is simplest and truest. That is the error that was made at the John 3:16 conference. To the elite minds there, God cannot will that all men be saved and at the same time will that not all men be saved. Their error is in not taking the nuances of language in their fulness, nor balancing one truth claim with those which compliment it. In no case does Scripture contradict. And if that is our hermenuetic, our presuppositional truth, then when we run in to “apparent” contradiciton, we must search further. Because, all things are reconciled in Christ. There is an answer. God does not leave us in darkness. It is not he who is the author of confusion. Immediately, one questions: Well isn’t confusion part of his decreedal will. Yes, the terminology must be applied to what we know of the means by which God is carrying out his will. Thus, we have God who “authored” confusion in the decree, yet, he ordered creation in such a way that in it, that the author, that is the one who is the doer of confusion, would be another. In the case of the John 3:16 Conference, God does will the salvation of all men, but the how is another matter all together. Allen refuses to touch the decrees and that bifucation ignores the necessary congruity of Scripture. Thinking he has made things simple he complicates the matter to the nth degree.
Does all mean all, it is asked? Or, is all nuanced by other things we know. The word desire, as in God desires all men to be saved, is thelo, will. Now that is the same root of thelema, Thy will be done. Obviously, there is a difference. For if we make will global we end up with Universalism. If it was God’s will that all men should not perish but come to repentance, if he willed that all be saved and only some are, then the problem is with our understanding of thoses verses. It cannot be global. It cannot be simply that God wants all but cannot accomplish, for that would mean that there are two, equal, but opposing wills in God. To the contrary then, God’s will is that all mankind through the salvation of some will be saved as complimentary statements of Biblical fact. All mankind will be saved. Not meaning that each individual will be saved, but mankind. That is not contradictory. But it requires that “all mankind” be defined by all the context of all Scripture. And Scripture says not all will be saved but only the believing ones.
The same is true about the word world in John 3:16. The term kosmos can mean the entirety of creation as was ordered by God in the decrees. It can mean the entirety of creation as it now is as an entity and not in consideration of time nor the working out of the decrees in time’s progression. It can also mean the earth, mankind in total upon it, or a portion of it or a portion of man upon it. What we need is further nuance from the immediate context and beyond.
Referring back to what I said earlier, all mankind, that is, what mankind is as created in the image of God, as it was in the Garden, all mankind’s essentiality, will be saved. So also, “…God loved the world…” can have global meaning. That is, it can refer to the entirety of God’s decreedal order in creation, it can refer to the created entities particularly, it can mean mankind each one individually, or, it can mean world of unbelievers or as retricted by the final clause of 3:16, “the believing ones.” The believing ones is a Greek construct that is known as a verbal noun. We do not have that in English, typically. We do not say of football players that they are footballings, but the Greeks do say that those who have have faith are faithings. Add to all of this that John 3:17 gives more illumination as to what the purpose of the Son being sent was, where we have world used, it cannot mean anything except as referring to the believings as particular individuals, because John 18 further explains that Jesus’ purpose in coming was so that “he who does not believe has been judged already.” So, the partition is made in John 3:17. Namely that in John 3:16 it may well be global in one sense but takes on the meaning of particularity in the next verse, limiting, or rather refining the accuracy of the scope and application of the love of God in reference to the world. I am prepared to say that it means both its expansive and narrow sense; that God’s love is global but nuanced to particular things and persons and as the context continues the focus, it becomes clearer that the whole world to be saved, is only a portion, and that being those who the Father gave the Son from before the creation of the world.
When we put it all together, God did not send his Son for the global salvation of all men individually everywhere, throughout time in the entirety of God’s decreedal will. Instead we have a two fold mission that is revealed also in John 5:21-22, which perfectly compliments John 3:16-18. We have that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it, but that through him the world might be saved, and that through his coming the world which was under the condemnation from the judgement of God in the fall, was to be judged and condemned by Jesus. Which thing he did, on Calvary. Both truths stand. God sent his son to save the world, and God sent his son to condemn it, even though that passage says he did not come to judge it. It is not a contradiction. The Son’s purpose was to save according to the eternal plan of God some of mankind and by doing so preserve a heritage that is all mankind. At the same time, in the eternal plan of God is the condemnation in the advent of Christ. Seeing as the world lay under condemnation before Christ came, it was not his coming that condemned it, but, his coming was the execution of that judgement. Both, still wait to be fulfilled in their entirety, yet, the Scripture declares that both have been accomplished by Christ coming into the world, having been given for that very dual purpose.
I hope this begins to illuminate how it is that apparent contradictions such as Christ dual role as Savior and executioner of judgement can both be true at the same time. Where two simple truth statements that appear contradictory are in reality complimentary. That God can will that all mankind be saved and at the same time will that all mankind will not be saved is not a contradiction, but each must fit together as one complimetary will. In the end, all things have there genesis and consummation in him, by him and to him, because from him are all things. God’s will is perfect and never contradictory for it is impossible that God should lie. When he says it is his will that all men be saved, our judgement must be in accord with his and he has also said that not all will be. If the resolution of how these are both truth was not unattainable, we would be left questioning the God who apparently does not speak with a single mind. For our comfort and assurance, God does give us answers that satisfy. That some have not understood… it is most likely because they have not asked. The answer is given, however, if one will humbly seek him. God does speak in mysteries, yet is happy to reveal his secrets, for just as Jesus said, the mysteries of the kingdom have been given to some to understand but to others it has not and, to those who are his friends he reveals all that the Father has shown him. Also, he has given the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, not confusion, not error, not contradiction. Paul confirms that the mystery is wisdom spoken to the mature, and that we have been given the mind of Christ so that we may freely understand the things of God. Paul also says that to each has been given the measure of faith according to Christ, and what we have we have received so that we do not boast against one another, there is nothing different among us, there is only what we have been given, more or less.
Tell us, Anonymous Jim, who are you. Are you a disciple of Christ, do you have his Spirit? If so, then I would say, ask, knock, seek, and the door will be opened, for the Father delights in his children to give them bread and not a stone. But, if you doubt that there is an answer, you will not trust the answer you get even if it is given. If you are not of Christ, then he says repent and believe or you will perish in your sin.
Nate and Thomas, I greatly appreciate the thought and time you put into your responses, although I will admit that not all of it as of yet comprehensible to me (whether I accept their philosophical agreement with Scripture or not!). I will probably need to read them several times, I think.
Thomas, since you asked me to clarify my beliefs, I will tell you. I do believe in a Creator, I’m aware of my own potential and capacity for evil, and I believe that God will honor the desires of those who seek redemption from their own evils via the sacrifice of Christ. If God instills those desires, then this would seem to be in accordance with your theology. Do I think I’m among the “elect” if there is such a thing? Not necessarily. If election is true, I have no guarantee that I am among them. My “ideas” of God do seem to be frequently in flux: they are never constant and I sometimes envy those who can maintain a steadiness of belief throughout their entire lives.
I’m not sure if you were looking for a specific answer, but that’s as best as I can frame it.
Thanks for the heads up today. It took me most of the day, being brain-dead as I am, but I got a response up. White has responded in kind. So we shall see.
Gentlemen, please!! I don’t know why people waste so much time debating such matters. It’s tiring, not to mention impossible to ever agree.
Gracie the issue is not agreement but truth:)I wonder how the apostle paul would have faired with your thinking.