God does not want to save everyone?

Today

At the Northview Community Church, church plant, TriCity Church, one of the senior members mentioned a former Columbia Bible College, professor of mine.

For as long as I could reason out any theology, I have always had Reformed leanings, but this professor was the first professor to tell me (paraphrased) that God did not want to save everyone.

This was because although all persons are sinful by nature and choice (Romans), some by nature will never be acceptable to God for salvation. 

This senior church member pointed out that forms of hyper-Calvinism were in error and I agreed, stating that no persons are forced or coerced into the Kingdom of God, or forced or coerced to stay out of the Kingdom of God.

Philosophically and theologically, God is the first cause of all things, including human nature and will, thoughts and actions, but as secondary causes, humanity embraces what God has caused and willed. Depending on the divine cause, it is theoretically possible for a human being to embrace salvation or to embrace a rejection of salvation with what I call limited free will.

From my PhD

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

The incompatibilist believes that God cannot simultaneously influence human actions or force or coerce human beings to commit free actions. Feinberg (1994: 64). A person who holds to this type of view may place more emphasis on human free will decisions in regard to their own human suffering than would a compatibilist. The compatibilist or soft-determinist states although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).

The incompatibilist may deny that God is causing particular suffering and would instead understand God as merely allowing it to occur. The compatibilist, on the other hand, may view God as directly willing evil and suffering for the greater good. Feinberg (1994: 64). Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61). And not merely allowing it to occur.

My compatibilist view is that it is indeed God’s choice alone to regenerate and therefore he alone is active in regeneration. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). But simultaneously as a person is regenerated they believe in Christ. Therefore although I view God as the initiator of regeneration I reason that logically, in order to avoid any suggestion of force or coercion, as God regenerates the saved person, he or she simultaneously believes. There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process. This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe. This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism.

Salvation remains alone a work of God. Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God. Weber (1955)(1981: 245). This would be a work of the Spirit. Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response, Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172), and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons. Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53). This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate becomes a divine act of regeneration. As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53). I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience. Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth. Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

June 5, 2017

Divine regeneration leading to human belief, will include human repentance. But as the human nature is not completely transformed through resurrection, further repentance will also be achieved in the sanctification process.

In regard to 2 Peter 3, for example: Erickson opines:

Quote:

‘…God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet he apparently he does not actually will for us all to be saved, since not everyone is saved.’ (361).

Quote

‘We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Loaded words

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Loaded words

Quote:

'It is possible to influence the outcome of a judgement by the deliberate use of prejudiced terms.' (142).

This fallacy negates facts and instead is used by one seeking a more favourable position in a debate, and/or to promote hostility toward the other side of the argument. (142)

Logically fallacious

Cited

'Argument by Emotive Language

Description: Substituting facts and evidence with words that stir up emotion, with the attempt to manipulate others into accepting the truth of the argument.'

'Logical Form:

Person A claims that X is true.

Person A uses very powerful and emotive language in the claim.

Therefore, X is true.'

'By rejecting God, you are rejecting goodness, kindness, and love itself.'

My examples of this fallacy:

By taking an atheistic worldview, you reject morality, embrace immorality, and are therefore evil.

By holding to a Christian worldview, you hold to a bloody atonement, therefore you hate humanity.
---

I do not hold to atheism, but an atheist does not necessarily reject morality and embrace immorality. In the context provided, the atheist is not necessary particularly evil for holding to such views.

However, in light of Romans 1-3, all persons since the fall (Genesis 3) are corrupted in nature, tainted and evil. The only remedy is divine regeneration through the salvific work of Christ and eventual resurrection.

A consistent atheistic worldview will not be based on the Scripture and revelation from the infinite, eternal, holy, God. Therefore it lacks divine sanctioning.

The biblical Christian does hold to a bloody atonement from Jesus Christ, but this atonement in concerned with God's hatred of sin, the unholiness of sin, and divine desire to provide atonement for human sin, for those in Christ. The bloody nature of atonement does not lead to a reasonable conclusion that followers of the triune God, hate humanity, as God's love for humanity is demonstrated in the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ. The Church should theologically and practically reflect that love (Matthew 22, Mark 12, John 13-15, 1 John).
---

Once again, as with previous entries reviewing the Pirie fallacy text, in the presentation of premises and conclusions for arguments, objective reason, evidence and facts should be provided. But this fallacy presents subjective emotional assertions.

When presenting an argument, emotive argumentation should be avoided, in favour of fact-based reasoning.

Slideshare.net

Status does not make an argument true

Status does not make an argument true

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Preface   

My photo 20250420, Milano. 

Lazarum, arguementum ad

The poor person may be blessed, but is not always right. (140). A reference to the poor man, Lazarus, in the New Testament.

Luke 16:19-31

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Footnotes: Luke 16:22 Greek bosom; also verse 23

Note: Theologically, Martin Luther's view here on Luke 16: 19-31:

Wikipedia: Rich man and Lazarus 

'Martin Luther taught that the story was a parable about rich and poor in this life and the details of the afterlife not to be taken literally: Therefore we conclude that the bosom of Abraham signifies nothing else than the Word of God, ... the hell here mentioned cannot be the true hell that will begin on the day of judgment. For the corpse of the rich man is without doubt not in hell, but buried in the earth; it must however be a place where the soul can be and has no peace, and it cannot be corporeal. Therefore it seems to me, this hell is the conscience, which is without faith and without the Word of God, in which the soul is buried and held until the day of judgment, when they are cast down body and soul into the true and real hell. (Church Postil 1522–23)[17]' 

(17) 'volume IV: pp. 17–32 Archived 2010-10-11 at the Wayback Machine, The Sermons of Martin Luther Baker Book House Grand Rapids, MI' 

---

Non-Wikipedia version

Whole Reason: Thoughtful Christianity: Letters to a Traditionalist on Hell 04 – Lazarus and the Rich Man

'Therefore we conclude that the bosom of Abraham signifies nothing else than the Word of God,…. the hell here mentioned cannot be the true hell that will begin on the day of judgment. For the corpse of the rich man is without doubt not in hell, but buried in the earth; it must however be a place where the soul can be and has no peace, and it cannot be corporeal. Therefore it seems to me, this hell is the conscience, which is without faith and without the Word of God, in which the soul is buried and held until the day of judgment, when they are cast down body and soul into the true and real hell. (Church Postil 1522-23)' 

Website: About 

'Whole Reason is the theological teaching site for Associate Pastor Daniel G. Sinclair, living and working in the Nashville, Tennessee area. I recently completed a Masters in Theology at Williamson College.' 

---

I agree with Martin Luther that this a non-plain literal, parable. I do reason that the unregenerate (as opposed to the regenerate through the Holy Spirit, John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) soul/spirit, post-mortem goes to Hades (Hell1), but that this is a non-corporeal spiritual existence. A spiritual existence of non-peace outside of common grace which existed in the temporal realm. The conscience, mind, soul/spirit in Luke 16 is facing pure justice as this person, post-mortem, is not covered by the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ for sin (s) provided to believers by grace through faith. The 'true hell' (Hell2) according to Martin Luther is that of the lake of fire (Revelation 20) where both resurrected body and soul are cast in the lake of fire. I reason that the lake of fire too is non-plain literal, and death and Hades are cast in Revelation 20: 14, which describes the second death. But, I agree with Luther that this is culminated hell, with a physical/spiritual aspect. The dead outside of Christ are cast into Hell2.

---

Pirie opines that poverty does not enhance an argument. (140). In other words, if someone is poor, it does not enhance his/her argument and make it true. Perhaps for some, human sympathy in regard to a poor person, influences a lack of objectivity in evaluating premises and conclusions.

'Poverty does not contribute to the soundness of an argument.' (141). Of course being in the middle-class or wealthy, does not contribute to the soundness of an argument.

The author's point is technically correct, but then again the status of any person does not make his/her argument true; the correctness of premises and conclusions make an argument true.

If I opine on theology, bible or philosophy of religion, the argument is not necessarily true because I have a related PhD, but if my premises and conclusions are true, my argument is sound. As Pirie notes this fallacy is due to giving attention to the source of argumentation, instead of to the contentions made. (141).

Status does not make an argument true

An argument can be embraced from a type of celebrity or authority, without reasonable, in-depth evaluation of premises and conclusions made. 

An argument can have logical premises, but not all premises are reasonable and the argument is false.

Premise 1: Canada has existed since 1867

Premise 2: Dr. Russ is a Canadian

Premise 3: Dr. Russ is a noted 19th Century scholar (Dr. Russ did not exist until the 20th Century)

Conclusion: He earned his Canadian PhD in 1890 (He earned his PhD in the 21st Century, in Wales, not Canada. It may have been reasonable for me to have earned a Canadian PhD, but not reasonable in the 19th Century) 

Premise 1: Logical, reasonable, true

Premise 2: Logical, reasonable, true

Premise 3: Logical, not reasonable, not true 

Conclusion: Logical, but not reasonable or true.

---

An argument can have premises that are logical and reasonable, but not true as an argument.

Premise 1: Dr. Russ is a Canadian

Premise 2: He lived in the 20th-21st Centuries

Premise 3: Dr. Russ is not a radical conservative

Conclusion: He votes federally for the Liberal Party

Premise 1: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 2: Logical, reasonable, true
Premise 3: Logical, reasonable, true

Conclusion: Logical and reasonable, but not true. I have never voted for the federal Liberal Party.

Valid arguments cannot have a true premise (s) and false conclusion.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Eternity’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

FINKBEINER, DOUGLASE (2004) Interpreting Luke 16: Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man-Parable or History?, Lansdale, PA , Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. 

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. STRONG, J. (1986) 

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

UWTSD, Lampeter campus, April 2017 Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

Preface

Edited December 25, 2023.

Lapidem, argumentum ad

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

This entry from British, Philosopher, Madsen Pirie describes a fallacy that consists of ignoring an argument altogether and refusing to discuss its central claim. (138). Pirie uses a classic example of someone ignoring, as opposed to refuting an argument. (138).

This fallacy connects to concepts discussed within my other Pirie, and philosophical articles, such as defining premises and conclusions out of possibility, in this case by ignoring the possibility of such statements and/or arguments as reasonable. The fallacy also ties into concepts of a closed mind. 

Pirie uses an example:

'He is a friend of mine. I won't hear a word spoken against him.' (138).

This dismisses, knowledge, (138) and embraces ignorance.

Arguments are ignored because they fail to conform to existing thinking. (139). For example, argumentation is dismissed that fails to agree with modern thinking within Western society.

As this may come to the mind of the reader, I will state that an to appeal to the stone, is not the same as an appeal to the stoned; although in some cases the quality of reasoning may be comparable.

My examples of the use of this fallacy:

I won't believe in God, because I believe in science.

I don't need to study science, because I just need to read my bible.

Argumentum ad lapidem – Appeal to the stone 

Dr. Christopher B. Germann (Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc. / Marie Curie Alumnus)

Cited 

'Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “appeal to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. 

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted. 

The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley‘s immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, “I refute him thus.”[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley’s argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.' 

Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. 

Alexander, Samuel (2000). “Dr. Johnson as a Philosopher”. In Slater, John. Collected works of Samuel Alexander. 4. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-85506-853-7. 

Shatz, Itamar (2017). “The ‘Appeal to the Stone’ Fallacy: On Being Completely Dismissive in Arguments”. Effectiviology. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.