





First, let’s look at the 1 Timothy passage in its context:


Context is key in understanding what Paul is saying by “all men.”  He is writing to Timothy during a time when the church was under persecution by the authorities.  It would have been a great temptation to neglect praying for those authorities, or to wish God’s curses upon them.  Certainly even in the West today that temptation still remains.

Yet Paul is calling on Timothy to encourage his church to be praying for those in authority over them, because even people in authority will come to know and honor Christ as Lord.  Likewise, there is extensive discussion in Scripture of the debate over the salvation of Gentiles, those outside of the Jewish people descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The testimony of Scripture on this question is clear: there is no group of people that is excluded from the command to repentance or the effectual work of the Holy Spirit, and that is what Paul is saying here.  Titus chapter 2 contains similar language, as Paul refers to different groups of people (different age groups, different jobs and roles, different positions in life) to demonstrate that there are no man-made borders on God’s grace.  Paul isn’t saying “God really wants everyone to be saved, but He can’t or won’t actually save everyone.”  He is reminding Timothy that they are to regard their neighbors rightly, and that there is no border around to whom the Gospel is to be carried.

There is a deeper issue that needs addressing as well, in the impact this interpretation has upon the nature of Christ’s work on the cross, but I will come back to that after addressing the second passage.  Again I’m going to provide a larger context with the portion in question highlighted:




Dr. Boa, like many, reads the highlighted portion to mean that God doesn’t want any human being to die unsaved, yet for some reason He doesn’t save everyone.  This is significant to dealing with Dr. Boa’s argument here because it reveals his presupposition–his assumed truth that sits as a cornerstone of the argument.  That assumption is a big part of what drives him to believe that there is some kind of conflict within God, a mystery regarding how God can be truly sovereign over creation, and yet allow people to live and die as rebel sinners.  But looking at the whole passage, and indeed the book as a whole, and it becomes clear that Boa’s reading of this as “God wants to save all people everyone in the world” is not Peter’s intended meaning.

Firstly, Peter is writing to a specific audience: to a group of believers, a church, just as Paul was above.  His introduction to this book defines that intended audience and the understanding of who he is speaking to when he uses particular words.  Now take a look at the beginning of the passage quoted above: Peter discusses others, not within the intended audience of this letter, “scoffers” who say that belief in Jesus’ return is foolish because of how long it had been. (If only they knew how many years hence we would be reading his words!)

Peter advises that such words should not be heeded because God’s schedule is not man’s.  He will not return just to prove a first-century fool wrong, but He will return when the timing is perfect and when all God’s people have been called.  Look at the verse in question: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”  The Lord is on His own perfect schedule to fulfill His promise–what promise?  The promise to return for His bride.  And why is He waiting? He “is patient toward you…”  Who is “you?”  “You” must refer to the aforementioned audience, to the church.  For Dr. Boa’s interpretation to be correct, “you” would have to refer to all people throughout the world, but this would put the verse at odds with the earlier differentiation between the scoffers and the believers and create a very strange concept in the middle of an unrelated discussion.  

Therefore, following the language of the text, to whom does “any” and “all” refer to?  The same audience as “you”: to believers, to God’s chosen people.  To insert a concept of universal atonement here, either in the Arminian sense of “everyone who chooses to follow God” or the universalist sense of “everyone in the world is now saved through Jesus’ work” is to rob the language of its basic meaning, and to import in a concept that is simply not present in Peter’s words.

More importantly, this passage is not a discussion of soteriology, but of the coming of Christ, and a reminder that believers are to be patient as we wait for Him to come and bring perfect justice.  We are to live as those expecting the return of Jesus at any time, and that time will come exactly when God intends it to.

I contend for these interpretations because it is important for us to be lovers of truth, and to be ready to defend a truly full and robust interpretation of Scripture against those who believe that it would be more profitable for Christians to carve out the parts they don’t like and leave the parts they do.  It becomes very difficult to do that if I am suddenly left clinging to an interpretation of a verse that even an unbeliever can recognize is not correct by reading the context.  There is a human tradition driving that interpretation, one we must see and call for what it is: an injection of an eisegetical reading into the text.  Reading the text in that way makes lining up consistently with truth very difficult, and I believe it muddies the preaching of the Gospel.

In his systematic theology, Wayne Grudem suggests that reformed/monergistic believers look askance at the non-reformed/synergistic position because we believe that such a position is essentially a gateway to universalism/inclusivism.  While this is certainly true to a certain extent (I would argue that White’s axiom “The only consistent Arminian is an open theist” is applicable here), I don’t believe this is the primary objection of myself or others.  Rather, the primary objection, when looking at the state of preaching in many Western evangelical churches, is that it creates an “easy-believism,” “get your ticket punched and you’re good” idea of the Gospel that is foreign to the teachings of Scripture.  But because that method of preaching is so endemic to a large number of American churches, a push to return to a more scriptural approach causes a lot of grief on the part of those pastors.

Coming in part 3: A more excellent ministry


One thought on “The importance of context: a response to Dr. Ken Boa (part 2)

  1. Pingback: Salvation belongs to the Lord: A response to Dr. Ken Boa (part 1) | SPURGEON AUDIO

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo



Connecting to %s