But how is it a "desire"? If God desires it in any sense, is it not a failure of His abilities that what he desires cannot come to pass? That is, how can it be that God, knowing that the only way in which any can be saved is for the blood of Christ to cover their sins, desire (in any sense) that someone be saved if He will not give Christ's blood for them? What is the sense of speaking of ANY kind of "desire" there, except to "let God off the hook"?
Todd, we can't ignore the word theleo. We have to deal with it. The literal translation of the word is "wish", but that conveys the same idea as desire. It's how we contextualize theleo that gives us a clue as to God's mind on the subject.
I can confidently say that God's desire for you to be saved was effectual because that desire sprung forth from His will of decree. But what of those who are not saved? Does God theleo them to a lesser extent; or is His theleo in keeping with Arminian doctrine? Of course, we would say "no" to both questions. That's why I am suggesting that theleo in 1 Timothy 2:4 is in harmony with the general call of the gospel; not a personal desire by God that John, Sue, Geoff or Sandy be saved.
Hi Bill -
The dispute isn't over the word theleo, but over the word panta. Nobody doubts that the word theleo expresses desire or wish... but we can't make God subject to human limitations of desire. To echo the great theologian Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want". This is true of men, but it is NOT true of God. I honestly think the whole discussion centers on our implicit assumption that somehow it's okay for God to desire something that he cannot have, because that's the way it is for you and me. Since that is NOT true for God, then we have to read the text more carefully in context... and I would submit that every single context where this "desire" is expressed is a context that requires panta not to cover each and every individual.
Todd
Todd, you've completely missed my point. God never desires something that he can't have. In regards to soteriology, God's call is effectual. If we're good card carrying Calvinists we better believe that. But what did Paul mean when he said, God desires all to come to repentance? Our overarching soteriology keeps at bay any Arminian view of the text, but we're intellectually dishonest if we don't tackle the term in context.
If you notice from my earlier suggestion, I did not interpret theleos as an unfulfilled desire, but rather an expression of the general call of the gospel. All (and I mean each and every person) are called to repent and believe. The only other plausible interpretation would be that God's desire is for all who are appointed unto eternal life to believe. That would take the theleos of 1 Tim. 2:4 and make it part of the effectual call.
Last edited: