Please take 3 minutes of your time to watch this video of a question asked by Mark Driscoll of RC Sproul. Don't run away from those names, please watch the video. It might overcome some false understanding of many about the reformed view of God's desire for all to be saved. You will be surprised by Mr. Sproul's position.
Since there was no link here, I just punched in both names in the YouTube search engine to see what popped up. I think I found the right video, and to be honest, it was a giant question dodging waste of time.
Sproul did not answer the question posed to him, in a way that made any relevant sense to the question itself. He just gave some wordy retort about how God is grieved when the wicked are judged. OK. And the answer?
Naw. Next we have a parallel story set up to help us understand Driscoll and Sproul's position on the God of reformed theology being like a judge who was grieved to sentence his son to the penalty that he deserved. But what he forgot to include in his little allegory, was that if the judge was to represent the God of the reformed thinking, than that judge raised his son as a criminal, teaching him his entire life to do nothing but break the law, shaping and predestining him to become a criminal, so that when the day of judgement came, he was able to condemn him for the very crimes he bred his son to commit, so that the judge could receive the glory for the execution of his perfect justice. And the judge SHOULD have been grieved because he raised his son to do nothing but act as a transgressor. If he had tacked THAT on then we might have had a little bit of consistency with the reformed view.
I don't know much about Sproul, but I knew enough about Driscoll to have been leery. That name alone was worth running from.
Sorry about neglecting to include the link. Stupid. I've fixed it I think.
EverestoSama said:
Sproul did not answer the question posed to him, in a way that made any relevant sense to the question itself. He just gave some wordy retort about how God is grieved when the wicked are judged. OK. And the answer?
Reply:
I think you would be warranted to conclude from Sproul's remark that God does desire all to be saved which does answer the question.
I think you would be warranted to conclude from Sproul's remark that God does desire all to be saved which does answer the question.
Not terribly. He only said that God is grieved when the wicked are punished. But what we have here, so I would be led to believe, is two adherers to reformed theology conversing (I don't know much about Sproul but I would assume he is as well, based on the fact that Driscoll is interviewing him on this subject, and I know very few Calvinists who will respectfully interview someone from an opposing theological camp and then conclude in agreement) about a verse that's often disputed over by those involved in some sort of Cal vs Arm discussion. If this is the case, what he is doing then is sort of skirting around the issue.
Does God desire all men to be saved?
Well, He certainly is grieved when they are punished.
OK.
But did He desire those men to be saved?
Well, He created them to serve only as eternal kindling wood with a one way non-refundable ticket to hell in their hand from birth, but He's grieved that He had to give it to them without also giving them a chance to change tickets.
OK.
Does He desire them to be saved?
Well, He..... etc. etc.
I don't know much about Sproul
R.C. Sproul is a reformed theologian and pastor, he founded Ligionier ministries. He is calvinist to the bone.
I think you would be warranted to conclude from Sproul's remark that God does desire all to be saved which does answer the question
I don't necessarily think you would be. I think Sproul was rather saying that 1Tim. 2:4 only reveals something of God's character, not that He truly wants all men to be saved! Just that He doen't "get His jolly's" sending them to hell.
I myself have went back and forth between Cal and Arm alot. I would read a Sproul book and think "ok I'm a calvinist" then read William Booth's bio and think "no I'm arminian." But finally I have come to believe that there is no point in picking sides. God said He "desires all men to be saved", "all men to come to repentance", "none to perish", and that Jesus was "a ransom for all". That's what He means!!! He only says what He means! You can't ignore these verses or try to make them fit into a little theological box. God is sovereign and works all things for His glory too! So the best thing we can do is "trust and obey"!
"Trust and obey, for there's no other way
\tto be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey."
I recommend Keith Daniel's sermon "The Tightrope Walker"
I have heard people say that we should not ever ascribe to God as having wants, desires, or wishes. For that would be contrary to His attributes of omnipotence and sovereignty. To say that God wants, desires or wishes something implies that He is weak or powerless to make it happen.
What these people are not realizing is that God willfully and purposely limited His sovereignty over man's free will. God did not want robots that had to serve and obey Him. He gave man the ability to choose. God's desiring that all men repent and be saved is a natural consequence of man's freedom to choose between (spiritual) life or death.
This discussion is locked.
