It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:4 (KJV) “…(God) will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” But this does not happen. So it appears that God wills that all men are saved but only some are saved. Therefore, apparently we must conclude that God’s will is not always fulfilled. But how can that be, isn’t God omnipotent? If not everything God wills comes to pass then maybe God isn’t really all powerful, right? No, but to understand this, you’ll have to hang with me.

You see, the Apostles words “(God)…will have all men to be saved” can be understood in three different ways. The first way is by restricting its application. This is what Augustine and others have done. Augustine said, “God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will.” In other words, God wills only certain men to be saved. The word “all” applies only to all the men God will save.

A second way of understanding 1 Timothy 2:4 is by applying it to every class or type of people. In other words, God will save certain people out of all ethnic groups or types of people: males and females, Jews and Gentiles, or great and small—but not every single person.

The third way to understand 1 Timothy 2:4 is according to the theologian Damascene’s work (De Fide Orth. Ii, 29), c. 675-749 AD. He wrote of the antecedent (a cause or condition that comes first) will of God and the consequent (something that follows as a result, or conclusion) will of God. However, when we refer to God’s will there really is nothing that comes first or last. These terms just help us understand the things that are willed by God as to their logical order and importance as they fall out in time.

Here is the deal, anything that happens can be considered in its absolute sense as either good or bad. Yet, when additional circumstances are considered, the goodness or badness of a situation may change drastically. For instance, from an absolute sense, for a man to live is a good thing and for a man to be killed is an evil. But if in a particular case we find out that a man wantonly murdered innocent school girls, it becomes a good thing to execute punishment against him. Conversely, to allow him to go his merry way would be an evil. Consequently, we could say that a judge would antecedently (in advance) want every person to live a happy and full life; but consequently (because of circumstances) he must will murderers to be executed. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some men to be damned as an act of His justice. Just as we will things after all particular circumstances are considered, so does God. This is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus we could say that a just judge wills straightforwardly the execution of a murderer, but in a qualified way he would will all men to live. This qualified willing might be better termed a “willingness” rather than an absolute will. In short, it is clear that whatever God straightforwardly wills (with all things considered) takes place; although what He wills antecedently (His willingness) may not take place.

Probably many Christians believe that there was no death before Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden. They believe this because of two passages in the letter to the Romans. In Romans 5:12 Paul says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Paul clearly indicates that death spread to all men through Adam and Eve’s sin.

Then in Romans 8, Paul tells us that Adam’s sin effected the rest of God’s creation. He writes, “…the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now…” Ultimately, the thinking goes that because Paul says death entered through sin and there was no sin until Adam and Eve, it is believed that there was no death before that.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that the death in the Bible is separation and not annihilation. This can happen in two ways. One way is the separation of the soul from the body which is physical death. The second type of separation is the soul from God which is spiritual death or to be “dead in our sins” (Col 2:13 and Eph. 2:5).

I believe that in Romans, Paul is speaking of spiritual death. One of the main points of Romans is that Jews are dead in their sins because they have the OT law and the Gentiles are dead in their sins because of the law written on their hearts. In fact, in Romans 8 he writes that “the mind set on the flesh is death…Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile towards God” (vv. 6-7). Clearly, Paul is not writing about physical death but spiritual separation from God through disobedience.

Additionally, even if we say that Romans 5 is about physical death, Paul makes it clear that the “death through sin” applies to mankind. He says, “death spread to all men because all sinned,” not that death spread to everything. Paul’s statements about death are pointed toward mankind.

In a perfect world there would be no death, right?

Some people object to the idea that there was death before the fall because they believe God would create a perfect world where there would be no death. After all, doesn’t the Bible tell us that God called everything “very good” (Gen. 1:31) after He created it? How could there be death in a perfect world?

I think this idea is flawed from the perspective of God’s goodness and perfection (meaning completion). Just because something dies doesn’t mean that death is necessarily a bad thing if it fulfills its divine purpose. For instance, in order for us to consume food, something must die. The Bible certainly tells us that Adam and Eve were free to eat of all the fruit in the Garden but one. Fruit is a living thing, but once Adam or Eve ate of it, it would die. This is a good thing in that it provided nourishment for the first couple and fulfilled God’s purpose for fruit. In fact, Jesus said in John 12:24 that, “except a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” If this natural process of life, death, seeding, and growth did not happen, there could not be ongoing food production. It stands to reason that God intended these things in order to bring forth agricultural abundance. Otherwise, God would not have instructed Adam and Eve before the fall to “dress, till and keep” the earth if the planting, growth and harvesting principles were not part of nature.

Thomas stated: “…and in willing the preservation of the natural order, he wills some things to be naturally corrupted.” (ST I, Q. 19, Art. 9)

Here is a fact of our nature: humans are not satisfied until we can discover the cause of an effect. For example, knowing an effect, such as a solar eclipse, our intellect is stimulated and is unsatisfied until we discover the cause of the eclipse. Also, ever noticed how toddlers and little kids are forever asking, “But, why mommy, why?” Kids aren’t satisfied until they think they have an answer to their “why” questions. Of course, this can be very frustrating to parents who end up trying to give answers to these questions and explain the causes of things. The point is that the human intellect desires to understand the essence of the cause for all things. This desire is what drives all science and technology forward. However, it also is the reason why humans can never be fully satisfied in this life.

The drive to understand the essence of causes impels humans to know the First Cause of all things. Furthermore, we not only want to know that there is a First Cause (meaning does it exist), but we want to penetrate farther to understand the very essence of the First Cause itself. The First Cause of all things is God.

The good thing is that we can come to know a lot about God: i.e. His existence, His attributes, His love, etc. We can learn these things from nature in a limited way and from revelation in a deeper way. However, our complete satisfaction can only consist in the direct contemplation of the very essence of the First Cause, God. Direct contemplation of God can only happen, well, directly. The Bible calls this knowing God face-to-face. This face-to-face contemplation and intellectual penetration into the essence of God is withheld from us until we are in the world to come. Consequently, as long as men desire and seek something we cannot be fully satisfied. Frankly, God designed us this way so that men would “seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring’” (Acts 17:27-28).

1 Corinthians 13:10-12 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

If I have heard it once, I’ve heard it scores of times. It’s the Christian cliché that goes like this, “Churches shouldn’t be competing with each other.” A variation of this is, “Why, can’t we all get along and be one happy family?” The assumption is that competition is bad and Christians and/or churches are wrong for competing to do the Lord’s work in a superior or excellent way. Here is the problem; the survival of all life is based on competition. Guess who created life to function this way.

Plants compete with each other for sunlight. Insects compete for food and so do animals. Regardless of what anyone might say, competition is the key to survival. The real question is what form does this competition take?

There are literally thousands of different ways or venues for competition so let’s boil it down to its most essential elements. Okay, bottom line: there are only two ways to compete—good and bad. Good competition fosters positive productivity and bad competition is destructive.

Good competition happens like this. Let’s say my friend and I challenge each other to a 2 mile foot race. Now let’s suppose my friend is an amateur runner and belongs to a track club. And let’s suppose that I would likely poop-out if I tried to run over ½ mile (unfortunately, this is too true). I now have a couple of choices. I can postpone the race for a month and start working out to improve my stamina and speed. This would greatly enhance my chances and have the benefit of making me a far better runner. Or I could go ahead with the race and try to shove my friend into oncoming traffic so that he gets injured and I win the race. One choice elevates me and makes me a better runner; the other choice injures and hampers my opponent so that I can win unfairly. The second choice, of course, is an example of bad competition.

Good competition is when a person or organization attempts to achieve success based solely on the strength of their abilities, products or services. Those engaged in good competition will continually strive to improve themselves, their products or services. On the other hand, those engaged in bad competition attempt to achieve success through any means other than the strength of their abilities, products or services. Rather than working to improve these elements, those engaged in bad competition will usually seek to achieve success primarily through the impairment of others.

The Apostle Paul was an advocate of good competition for himself, other Christians and churches. Read this:

1 Cor. 9:24-27 (NIV) Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. [25] Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. [26] Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. [27] No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Bad competition happens when Christians complain about how “[the megachurch] has no depth, in most cases, theologically speaking, and has no appeal for any commitment...The megachurches simply want individuals to feel good about themselves…It's a church being organized on corporate logic” (Samuel Kobia, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches). Bad competition happens when Christians are disdainful of those who strive to grow in the Lord and deepen their understanding of the things of God.

Good Christian competition is when I do everything I can to become the best servant I can be for the Lord. Good competition happens when a church works to improve every aspect of their ministry so that it brings glory to the Lord and serves people at the highest level possible. It is good competition when churches work together to be a transformational force in a community.

After all of the hullabaloo over Pope Benedict’s speech in Germany, I am wondering how many people bothered to read it and attempt to understand what he was saying. At minimum, in my opinion, the Pope’s speech was a brilliant challenge to both Western secularism and Islamic extremism. But, the fascinating thing is that his central thesis has to do with the relationship between faith and reason. How could such an arcane subject cause such a world-wide firestorm? Well, allow me to paste in a portion of the Pope’s speech. This will make this post long, but it is worth reading. I will then make my own summary comments following the Pope’s words and attempt to show why his insights are so important.

Portions of Pope Benedict’s Speech

“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. … God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.

This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly,love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is "logic latreía" -- worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Romans 12:1)."

My Summary

The way I would explain the Pope’s comments is to start with the following insight. If God dwells in a realm of transcendent volunteerism (unfettered free will), then there is no real relationship between faith and reason. What Muslims, some other religions and some Protestants believe is that God is not bound by anything whatsoever. His decisions, if He so chose, could be completely arbitrary and make no sense to us because He is understood to be utterly free to do anything He chooses. Such a view of God slashes in two the connection between what seems reasonable and what is of faith. Consequently, Muslim extremists, in an act of faithful obedience, can blow innocent women and children to smithereens while our human reason reels in disbelief because it seems to violate everything that seems just and right. The Muslim extremist, however, responds by saying that the only thing that counts is obedience to God’s will and God wills that infidels are killed. If Allah wills that adultery is good, then adultery is to be done.

As the Pope pointed out in his lecture, the central issue for Christians is the following, “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.” Christians, since before Augustine have understood that ethics, faith and reason are all lodged in the very nature of God. Therefore, blowing innocent women and children up for religious reasons is wrong because it violates His nature. It is also contrary to reason because God has constructed the world to reflect His nature. The moral laws of nature are simply a description of how God has made things to be. Evil is evil not because God has arbitrarily said some things are good and other things are bad. Rather, God’s nature is His goodness. Evil is wrong because it is contrary to God’s very nature. Furthermore, man, as part of nature, has been designed by God to operate in harmony with His goodness. The fact that men fail to act in harmony with God’s nature does not change this. Therefore, faith and reason are two sides of the same coin.

The Pope’s comments challenge Western secularism because it has elevated human reason to the exclusion of faith. His comments challenge Islam because it denigrates human reason to a faith that views God as utterly sovereign and ultimately arbitrary. The Pope also challenges Christians to hold faith and reason together as bound up in God’s very nature.