The Scripture says, God “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). The Calvinist hermeneutic is not that God desires that every single man to be saved, but that every type of man (rich, poor, kings, slaves, etcetera) to be saved.
This hermeneutic exists because Calvinists oftentimes have a one-dimensional view of God’s will. In short, if God wills something, it happens.
However, such an hermeneutic does not always work. Passages such as 2 Pet 3:9 and Ezek 18:32 would mitigate against it. In the end, it is classic eisegesis.
The Two Wills of God. Thankfully for us Christians, Saint John of Damascus already has done the theological heavy lifting for us in answering this supposed conundrum of how God can will all men to be saved, but that somehow it does not happen when all things are possible with God. He rationalized that God has two wills per se, not that He is schizophrenic and changes His mind, but that He has an antecedent and permissive will. He explains:
One should also bear in mind that God antecedently wills all to be saved and to attain to His kingdom. For He did not form us to be chastised, but, because He is good, that we might share in His goodness. Yet, because He is just, He does wish to punish sinners. So, the first is called antecedent will and approval, and it has Him as its cause; the second is called consequent will and permission, and it has ourselves as its cause. This last is twofold: that which is by dispensation and for our instruction and salvation, and that which is abandonment to absolute chastisement [eternal damnation], as we have said. These, however, belong to those things which do not depend upon us (On the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 29).
We must affirm that God works all things in accordance with His will (Eph 1:11), yet He allows men to fail to repent. This is in spite of the fact that it is within His power to grant repentance (Phil 1:27), which is the greatest miracle of all.
The Calvinist answer, that because not all men repent, God must really not desire that all men to repent would in effect predestine them to hell. This does not necessarily make God evil. After all, God does not owe us the miracle of repentance. Our opposition to this idea simply is caused by the fact that it is not in the Scriptures nor ever understood as such by anyone in the Church.
The Orthodox position is different than the Calvinist one. God really desires all to repent. However, Orthodox are similar to Calvinists in affirming that He does not give an equal grace to all to repent.
Orthodoxy emphasizes that while God gives grace to all men to repent (though not equal), it nevertheless remains with man to repent. In some notable examples (the Pharaoh, those who hear Christ’s parables), God hardens hearts as a matter of punishment so that they will not repent one way or the other.
Such hardening is not a matter of God forcing man to be more evil than he already is, but rather God hands the wicked “over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices” (Ps 81:12). Saint Irenaeus speculates that this is because such people would have never repented to begin with (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 29).* Apart from God’s grace, of course this is true.
*God, knowing the number of those who will not believe, since He foreknows all things, has given them over to unbelief, and turned away His face from men of this stamp, leaving them in the darkness which they have themselves chosen for themselves, what is there wonderful if He did also at that time give over to their unbelief, Pharaoh, who never would have believed, along with those who were with him?
An Example of His Two Wills in the LXX. There was a point in Israel’s history that God warned that due to their sin, they were definitely going to face exile. In Hezekiah’s day, God through the prophet Isaiah warned that judgement was coming. This judgement that was warned about was the result of King Manasseh’s and the Israelites’ sin:
Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord: Days are coming when all that is in your house, and that which your ancestors have stored up until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord” (2 Kings 20:16-17).
Because King Manasseh of Judah has committed these abominations, has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has caused Judah also to sin with his idols; therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down (2 Kings 21:11-13).
This judgement for Manasseh’s sin was irrevocable:
Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold, I will bring calamities on this people from which they cannot escape, and they shall cry out to me, but I will not listen.” (LXX, Jer 11:10).
Yet, at the same time God expresses the possibility that disaster could be avoided if the Israelites repent in the face of “calamities..from which they [allegedly] cannot escape”:
[I]f this nation turns away from all their evils, then I will repent concerning the calamities I considered to do to them (LXX, Jer 18:8).
In fact, according to the Deuterocanonical book of 1 Ezra (Orthodox Canon), God desired that these same Israelites repent because He desired to “spare them”:
Now the God of their fathers sent to call them back [to repentance] through His angel [i.e. “messenger,” Jeremiah the prophet from verse 45] so as to spare them and their dwelling place (LXX, 1 Ezra 1:48).
How Does This All Work? God always gives men the opportunity to repent, even when He knows they will not. It is an open and sincere offer–God just has the foreknowledge to anticipate that some of those whom He extends the offer to will not take Him up on it.
Though God graciously gives the opportunity of repentance to all, He does not equally give all men the same nudge. For some, He knocks them of their proverbial horses and shows them the light (Acts 9:3-5). Others simply benefit from the testimony of God’s goodness in creation (Matt 5:45, Rom 1:20). To those who reject His grace (being knocked off a horse or something perhaps less substantial) He deliberately hands over such unrepentant men to the wickedness in their hearts as punishment–the result being that their lack of repentance would be made more deliberate on the part of the sinner (see John 12:40, but note that they were never going to repent anyway.)
Is God Being “Fair?” Saint Chrysostom comments on John 12:40:
Thus, in the case of Pharaoh, He is said to have hardened his heart, and so it is with those who are at all contentious against the words of God. This is a peculiar mode of speech in Scripture, as also the, He gave them over unto a reprobate mind
Romans 1:28…For the writer does not here introduce God as Himself working these things, but shows that they took place through the wickedness of others. For, when we are abandoned by God, we are given up to the devil, and when so given up, we suffer ten thousand dreadful things. To terrify the hearer, therefore, the writer says, He hardened,
and gave over….
These things He says, showing that we begin the desertion, and become the causes of our perdition; for God not only desires not to leave or to punish us, but even when He punishes, does it unwillingly; I will not,
He says, the death of a sinner, so much as that he should turn and live.
Ezekiel 18:32
To sum up Chrysostom, God judicially abandons men, handing them over to the devil so that they may do the wickedness they intended to do anyway. This is a punishment for their sin! God desires repentance and He also desires justice.
He desires our salvation, but when we desire otherwise, God is just and He permits us to reap what we sow. Those of us in unrepentant sin, not desiring communion with God for eternity (i.e. our salvation), reap judgement upon ourselves by getting exactly what we want. God accordingly hands us over to our own sin, which results in us abandoning God of our own accord–the end result being an eternity apart from Him (i.e. damnation).
Is God Able To Always Act Upon His Antecedent Will? Some people, like Saint Paul, are given the grace to repent even though apart from this grace they would have never repented. But, can any sinner repent like Saint Paul was able to do?
Saint Irenaeus asserts the negative, using Pharaoh as his example–there are some men, no matter the graces given to them, that will never repent and believe. God’s will, when the preceding in the circumstance, is to hand over such men to their sin. As a consequence, these men are completely abandoned by God, because they have completely abandoned God of their own accord and would, no matter the grace given, change their minds.
Other saints, like Augustine, disagree. He believes that the wicked “are so entirely at the disposal of God, that He turns them wherever He wills, and whenever He wills–to bestow kindness on some, and to heap punishment on others, as He Himself judges right by a counsel most secret to Himself, indeed, but beyond all doubt most righteous” (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 41). A little later Augustine writes, “God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills wherever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts” (Chapter 43).
Augustine’s assertion is that God, being the divine Physician, can heal the heart of the most wicked sinner causing Him to will his own repentance–yet God, for mysterious reasons, simply does not do this for all men.
Most Fathers have not supported Augustine’s perspective.
Conclusion. No matter whether Irenaeus or Augustine is correct in their contentions, we may conclude the following:
- God does indeed will that all men repent. He also gives grace to all men to repent.
- This grace is not given equally to all.
- Whether God, who can “turn” the will of a king “as a flow of water” (Prov 21:1), could have turned the will of even Pharaoh, the Fathers do not have a single answer.
- Nevertheless, there is a sense where God’s antecedently wills the repentance of Pharaoh, but also permissively wills that Pharaoh will be allowed what he desires–eternal separation from God.
In light of the preceding, we can see the common Calvinist hermeneutic does not have support from the Church Fathers nor the Scriptures (as we can see from how the issue is treated in Jeremiah and 1 Ezra.) If we appreciate Saint John of Damascus’ elucidation of God’s antecedent and permissive wills, the Calvinist hermeneutic becomes unnecessary.
____
This article was original posted at The Panarion.
Calvinists do not deny that God has two wills, but their reluctance to apply this principle to the texts in question in this article reflects that Calvinist theologians do not consistently apply Saint John of Damascus’ principle.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig–
Your charge of eisegesis is just plain silly, but I’m guessing you know that already and misspoke. There are plenty of Scriptural examples where “all” does not, in fact, mean ‘every single individual.’ You can dispute the validity of the interpretation, if you wish, but you cannot proclaim it eisegetical.
I’ll have to look at John of Damascus more closely, but here he appears to be claiming that God’s will can always be thwarted by man, a Pelagian claim if ever there was one. There is but one will of God in this scenario: his submissive will, ever yielding to the will of man.
Not all Calvinists interpret 1 Timothy 2:4 as referring to all types of men without exception. John Piper, for example, states that God wills the salvation of every single individual, but that he wills something else more: the manifestation of his glory through the full spectrum of wrath and mercy. No one–not the EO, not the RC, not the Arminian Protestant–can interpret this verse as the unqualified salvation of every single individual. (Only the universalist can do that.) I guess they’re all indulging in eisegesis!
Another thing. The huge majority of modern Calvinists are infralapsarian and do not side with Augustine and Calvin concerning double predestination. They’re closer to Aquinas’ notion of sufficient and efficient grace.
The Reformed, as you noted, speak of the two wills of God: decretive and prescriptive. But if you ask me, the latter should be referred to as his way rather than his will. He has revealed his preferences and wishes us to follow these precepts. But, of course, we can and do break these commands constantly. Such a construction can hardly be defined as his will. If a sovereign God cannot effect his own will, he is not worthy of our worship.
“Your charge of eisegesis is just plain silly, ”
I do not see why it would be. I cited Liogner’s interpretation of the passage. Having been to reformed churches, I know how they generally like to interpret the verse. The “all kinds of people” interpretation is eisegetical because the same concept is brought up elsewhere in the Scriptures, that I cited, and all types of men are clearly not being referenced, but rather categorically all.
As for those reformed thinkers out there that interpret 1 tim 2:4 differently, I cannot mention every exception out there. I think I have made a fair representation, one that Calvinists have defended to me (as I never interpreted 1 Tm 2:4 as they do) and your own reply betrays the same sensibility, being that you accuse John of Damascus being pelagian (which is ironic, the same idea is in Augustine’s ON Grace and Free Will.)
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
I don’t see how either 2 Peter 3 or Ezekiel 18 endorses your thesis. The former is speaking to impatient believers, not to the wretched scoffers and naysayers. The latter is merely a general call to repentance, which does go out to one and all.
Everyone but everyone has to qualify 1 Timothy 2:4. If one bothers to read the rest of Scripture, the verse cannot be taken literally. You yourself have qualified it.
Not only that, but I can interpret the verse exactly as you do (that God valued free will more than universal salvation) and still come to Calvinistic conclusions regarding it. Reformed thought espouses the freedom of the will as much as almost any other school of thought. There are very, very few fatalists in Christendom.
As far as I can tell, Augustine is saying the exact opposite of what John of Damascus is saying. Point out what chapter of the treatise “On Grace and Free Will” to which you’re referring, and I’ll give you a proper response.
In short ezek 18 makes clear that God does not desire the death of a sinner. THis is a categorical statement. John of Damascus’ exegesis of the two wills is the only thing that makes sense.
Craig–
Scripture makes it all too clear that “the wages of sin is death.” And certainly no one is holding a figurative gun to God’s head to enforce this dictum. In other words, it is without question that God–in some sense–wills the death of sinners…at least unrepentant ones.
Yes, God desires repentance…and calls for it in Ezekiel 18. In that sense, he does not desire the death of sinners. But no one is saying that he does!!!
We Reformed are more than glad to say that God is unwilling that any who repent should perish.
How in the world does the idea that men can thwart the will of God on a whim make sense? What is it that you’re seeing in John of Damascus? I’m not sure I’ve ever read anything that makes LESS sense.
Did you find an appropriate Augustine citation?
That’s a strawman. Man does not thwart the will of God, God permits man to defy his antecedent will, hence He also has a permissive will. You accuse me of misportraying the Calvinist position but in the defense of your own position, you betray that you conflate God’s will as 1D. FOr the record, AUgustine frequently speaks of God permitting evil, knowing that it allows for greater good. This only makes sense with a two-will paradigm.
Craig–
I tend toward supralapsarianism because I fail to see a distinction between a sovereign God permitting and willing evil. But infralapsarian Calvinists (by far the majority) constantly speak of God’s permitting of evil to effect a greater good, just as Augustine does.
But yeah, I find a discussion of God’s having more than one will as basically untrue. He’s not in any sense double minded. Most such discussions are talking about two thoroughly different concepts and then calling them both “the will of God.”
In the blog entry that you linked to, Fr. Kimel finishes on this note:
*********
“My question for St John is this: once the free actions of rational beings are exempted from God’s providential working, does not the notion of providence lose its theological traction? Fr. Andrew Louth has also raised this question in his book St John Damascene. Noting that John excludes free actions from the divine providence, he comments: “it is not clear to me that it is an exception that could be carried through without effectively denying God’s providential care over human affairs” (p. 142). Louth thinks that the Damascene recovers when he later includes free human actions within God’s consequent will, but given his emphatic separation between divine and creaturely agency (reiterated in his rejection of divine predestination), I’m doubtful. Louth’s initial reservation sounds just about right.”
*********
So, instead of talking about man thwarting God’s will, perhaps we could speak of the nullification of Providence. But they’re pretty much the same thing.