I want you to take your Bibles. Turn to second Peter, chapter three. And this morning, I'm I'm going to be mainly focusing on. Verse nine, but we need to read verse eight as well. It says, but do not overlook this fact, beloved, that with the Lord, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Now, this morning, I want to tell you about God's wish that none should perish, but that all should reach repentance. We just read the verse, it's second Peter three, nine, and it's one of the more controversial verses in the Bible. On the one hand, you have those who say that this verse proves that God does not predestine any individual to heaven or hell because God's wish is that no one on planet Earth should perish. For him to predestine to hell would be to go against his wish and render the verse meaningless. This is a proof text against predestination because, and listen to this, God cannot have any unfulfilled wish. On the other hand, you have those who say that this verse does not teach that God wants everyone on planet Earth to be in heaven. It teaches that those whom God wishes to be saved will be saved. So it obviously has in mind only the elect. This is a proof text against universal atonement, because ironically, just like the other group, God can't have an unfulfilled wish. The critical point here is God's which the question revolves around the third part of the verse of verse nine, you can break this off into four parts. It's the part that says not wishing that any should perish. So I want to ask some questions this morning, what is this wish that God has? What kind of a wishing is this second, who are the any? in that part of the verse is the pronoun to be inclusive of everyone on earth or restricted to the recipients of the letter. My first question is a theological question and the second one is a grammatical question. Let me begin by talking about the theological question. Can God have any unfulfilled wishes If God has one wish for a thing, is he capable of having another wish for the same thing? In other words, can God have multiple intentions in any event that occurs in history? Also, if God can have an unfulfilled wish, does this mean that he cannot make other wishes come true? In other words, is God capable of having more than one kind of a wish? like an efficacious wish, as well as a wish of pure desire. Now, for those not wishing to hold to tension, the obvious answer for all of these questions is no. God does not have any unfulfilled wishes, and God does not have more than one intention or view in any particular event. Now, as I've already shown you, there's a similarity in the way that two very differing groups approach this first. Both groups presuppose that God cannot have an unfulfilled wish. But how do we go about answering the questions? Do we just decide ourselves that this is the way God must be, because that's what seems rational to us? I want to say that we must go to the Bible. Only the word of God is capable of answering these things for us, because we do not have the power to penetrate into the mind of God on matters of his will. But in this case, we need to go to all of the word to answer the question. Second Peter three nine is not all that can be said on this matter. So let me deal with the first question, does does the Bible teach that God has any unfulfilled wishes? First thing I want to note in the word in the second Peter three nine. The word for which is the Greek word Bula mine. You can hear me say that word a lot this morning. God does not Bula mine that any should perish. Now, when you look at the definition of this word, it's interesting that the word has two definitions. On the one hand, it can mean a person desiring something like a wish, a want or a desire. So you have Acts 528 as an example. It says, We strictly charge you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you wished to bring this man's blood upon us. On the other hand, the word can mean a person deliberating or deciding something as in a will, a determination or an intention. So Second Corinthians 115 says in this confidence, I was purposing to come to you before that you might have a second experience of grace. In these verses, wishing and purposing are the same Greek word. In fact, they're the exact same form of the same Greek word with two very different kinds of meanings. This is very important, the word itself may bear the answer to the question, does God have any unfulfilled wishes? It depends on what Peter means by wish. If he means a desire for something to occur, but another thing actually occurs, then the answer is yes. If the Bible says that this happened and in fact, the Bible says that this happens all the time, as we're going to see. If, on the other hand, he means a purpose or an outcome that he intends to come about, that does occur, then the answer is no. If God decides for a thing to occur, then it occurs. But the thing is, It's not either one or the other. In my reading of the Bible, both things happen at the same time in the same event. What? In Isaiah 10, it's a great example. The king of Assyria is called the rod of God's anger and the club of his wrath. Now, God asks the rod, does the axe raise itself above him who swings it or the saw boast against him who uses it as if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up or a club branding him who is not wood? You see, God is the potter, we read that today, and we are the clay, and he has the right to make pots of whatever kind he chooses from the same lump. This is what it means for God to be sovereign. He wishes to use the king, and so the king is used to carry out God's plan. However, at the very same time in the very same passage, God says to the very same person, I sent him against a godless nation, but this is not what he intends. This is not what he has in mind. His purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations. So. What you see here is God is wielding the rod and the rod stops and does not do the things that God intends, even while he carries out God's intention. This passage and others like it presents a great problem for those not willing. To come to grips with God's will. And with that in mind, I want to give you some specific passages about God for you to think on the first. Does God will for a thing to happen and therefore it happens? In other words, does God predestined things to happen? Well, the scripture says of Jesus's death. In Acts four. Truly, in this city there was gathered together against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you did anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. The word plan there is the word boule. It's the same word we already looked at, except for this time it's a noun rather than a verb. Peter is not making up what he just said. In fact, he gets it from Isaiah. We were talking about in the hall downstairs, the difference between a quotation and an allusion or was that the word allusion? This is an allusion to the Old Testament, Isaiah 5310. It was the will of the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief. OK, so Peter and Isaiah are saying the same thing, in fact, The Septuagint uses the word Boulomai again, saying that we've already been looking at. So what we see from this great example, probably the ultimate example, is that God willed a will and it came to pass exactly as he planned it to. The next question is, how many things does God plan out? Is it just a couple like the creation of the world and the death of Christ? Are we to have a view of God that's a lot like a deist who believes that God has just sort of created the world and then set things in motion like a clock, never or rarely intervening with the principles of nature and of free will? No, because the word says whatever the Lord pleases. Key word here is pleases. He does in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deep. And it says our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases. And it says all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, no one can say stay his hand or say to him, what have you done? So I've given you three Old Testament texts now, they all use a different Greek word, the word fellow. But this word is almost a perfect synonym for bully. It has two meanings as well. It can mean a wish of desire, a wish to have a wish to want. Or it can mean a will of purpose or resolve. It's the same way that Boulay has the same two meanings. And as it will be made clear in a moment, it has the obviously the latter meaning of wish to do something that is in view in these verses. If God resolves to do a thing, and has a will of intent like a plan, and then he carries it out exactly as he wants to. No one and no thing can thwart him. OK, this is what it means to be God. You and I aren't like that, we can be thwarted all the time in our plans, but God is not like us. So Isaiah 46, 10 says, I am God and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times, things not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I shall accomplish all my purpose. This verse teaches that everything in the universe exists by God's declaration, his counsel and his purpose, and the word purpose here is again the word bullet. OK, now. Is this predestination dependent upon what God foresees? A lot of people say this. But I think the answer is no. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense to plan something that you know from foreknowledge the creature is going to do anyway. Why does God need to do any planning or purposing for that? I've never understood that line of argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It's going to happen anyway. God's purpose stands apart from and prior to anything that we do. Now, the Bible is very clear about this in Romans nine before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand not of works, but by him who calls. She was told the older will serve the younger. And just so you know, if you're reading, how do you know if you're reading Romans nine properly? What's because when you read a verse like this, your question is, well, that's not fair. And then the very next thing Paul says, someone will say to me, that's not fair. OK, if you're asking the same question, Paul anticipates, then, you know, you're reading it properly. And if you don't ask the question, then you're probably not reading it properly. The reference here is to two men, Jacob and Esau. Jacob was the more wicked brother, by all accounts, in Genesis. His very name meant deceiver. God did not see any goodness in this guy. But it was Jacob who attained salvation and not Esau, because Paul says that was God's choice before they were even born or had done anything good or bad. Now, according to human philosophy, God looks down the corridors of time to see what good little people will do, and that's always the presupposition in that theory. We're good little people. He cast his vote with ours, but according to the Bible, we're not good. We're all bad, wicked people. And so it is God that has to do the doing and the choosing and the saving. That's the very heart of grace, what grace means. God is not obligated to do this for anyone. This was the cornerstone upon which the Protestant Reformation was laid. It ought to be clear that from these examples that the Bible uses the word will for a desired planned outcome that God has that occurs in every situation in every event that happens on planet Earth. But there's another will in God. OK, Jesus says, whoever does the will of my father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother. And then John says in his first epistle, the one who does the will of God abides forever. So the question is, we've seen one will of God. Now we're reading these verses and the word will is used. Is this the same will? Well, it's the same word. It's the word of Philemon. We've already seen that word. What is the will of God here? When Jesus says, whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother, sister and mother. Well, obviously, it's not talking about carrying out the decree of God, because Herod and Pontius Pilate carried out the decree of God, but went to have went to hell. They carried out the decree with wicked hands, but John says, if you carry out the will of God, you will live forever. OK, So this will refers to the law of God, not the secret purposes of God's plan. It is people doing the will of God that Jesus has in mind. It is people obeying God's law. So David says, now listen to this. I delight to do your will. Oh, my God, your law is within my heart, OK? So, here the law is called the Boulamite. Same word we've seen. If the law is called God's will, then it goes without saying that his desire is that everyone obeys it. Nowhere in the Bible do you get even the slightest inkling that God is thrilled with anyone disobeying his law. It is a wicked man that hatches such a thought. Three times, Jeremiah refers to the people of Israel doing abominable things, even sacrificing their own sons and daughters in the fire. These were things which I did not command and it did not come into my mind, God says. In other words, I hope you agree with me. God does not desire that anyone should participate in human sacrifices. This is the practice of demons, not of God. But on a more common level, the key here is that we break the law every day. Therefore, we go against the will of God every day. We thwart this will of God every day. Isaiah 65, 12 confirms it says, but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in. Here's the word again. Delight is the word Boulamai. In this sense, people do things that God does not himself desire or wish. And here's the inescapable exegetical truth. The Bible uses the exact same words, fellow and Boolomai, to describe two very different wills. Both words are used to describe both wills. One cannot be thwarted. The other one can. Both wills exist side by side in God at any in any event where a creature with a will of its own is involved. The one will is God's plan, and that occurs. The other will is God's law, reflecting his holiness. Which we are to abide by. Now, theologians have seen this, and so they've talked about these two wills in many different ways. Each of these gifts have something unique. I just want to mention them. I'm not going to get into explanation of why they use these terms, but sometimes you read about the sovereign will versus the moral will. OK, or the efficient will and the permissive will. Or the secret will and the revealed will. Or the will of decree and the will of command. or the decreed of will and the perceptive will. One will is sovereign, efficient, secret decree known finally only to God. The other will is a moral command that is breakable by permission and revealed through the precept. Now listen to this so that you understand that this is not a contradiction. The sovereign will of God is that which pertains to himself, to his actions, his plans, his thoughts. The other will of God is that will which pertains to man, to our actions, our plans and our thoughts. Without the former will acting at every moment in everything, the universe would blow apart. So God says that by the word of Christ, all things hold together. Without the other will acting at every moment towards us, we would have no idea what God wanted us to do. We would be left utterly to ourselves and we would perish. Now, you should know that in Jesus, the God man, both wills conform perfectly. Because Jesus does what is required and he willingly carries out God's plan without sin. The biblical data compels us to think systematically about the will of God. It's not enough to say that God has one will only because the Bible says that's not true. But some believe that's exactly what is the case. Listen to these quotes from committed Arminian rationalists. Clark Pinnock refers to quote the exceedingly paradoxical notion of two divine wills regarding salvation. Randall Basinger says, quote, If God had decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are. And so John Piper, in his great article on this, the two wills of God, you can find this article on the Internet. I highly recommend it to anyone. He says that Basinger rejects the notion that God could decree a thing to be one way and yet teach that we should act to make it another way. Because Basinger says it's too hard to quote coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists. Now, on the other hand, while all Calvinists that I know affirm that there are two wills of God, sometimes it's difficult to tell in their writings because they always seem to emphasize the hidden counsel of God in their interpretation of passages like this. So John Gill, for example, says of our passage today, he says, though it is his will of precept that all to whom the preaching in the gospel is vouchsafed should repent. Yet it is not his purposing, determining will to bring them all to repentance for who has resisted his will. See, it just isn't possible that God might be revealing his other will in this passage, it just couldn't be. And it's because people cannot conceive of two wills in God, or maybe because they blur the distinctions to near obliteration that they constantly try to pry into the secret divine will of God. So some people wonder, am I really elect? Have you ever talked to somebody like that? And they refuse to ever come to believe in Christ, fearing that it is pointless if they're not elect. Others wonder, is it God's will that I move to California or marry such and such a person or buy this tube of toothpaste? And so they're always constantly paralyzed, never actually doing anything, fearing that they may be out of the will of God. Both fail to deal adequately with the law, the revealed will. Which is to believe and be saved. That's God's will. Likewise, both try to make the secret will something that can be known, even though the scripture says that the hidden things belong to God. If you want to know and obey God's will in anything, then believe and obey the commandments, friends, and rest in the knowledge that whatever God predestines will take place. Because the one who obeys, believes, who repents, confesses. Will rest. Predestination in the Bible is always given in the scripture for the comfort of the believer, not to torture the unbeliever. That is the law's job. If you want to be tortured, read the law. Don't read about predestination. Does God have multiple desires or intentions in things that occur? I believe he does, probably in everything that occurs. For example, the Bible says that Esau was a godless man who sold his birthright for a pot of porridge. But the Bible says other things about Esau as well. On the one hand, it says God hated Esau, Romans 9, 13. Very quickly on this, the word is a form of mizeo, which can mean to hate, detest, or abhor. So in Mark, you read, will be hated by all men on account of me. And in Hebrews, you read God loves righteousness, but hates lawlessness. And in revelation, God hates the deeds of the Nicolaitans. The word can sometimes mean to love less than, and a lot of people think that this solves the problem of Esau. If you just translate it, God loved Esau less than Jacob. I was wondering, how's that supposed to make Esau feel any better? Okay. But the psalmist says the Lord test the righteous and the wicked and the one who loves violence, his soul hates. So God does hate in some sense, the wicked. Most English translations of the story with Esau in Romans 9 say hate, so I go with hate. God hated Esau. What do we do with that? Well, some people think this means God cannot love Esau in any sense. This is a perverse view of God that denies, first of all, that God is love. And second of all, the Old Testament scriptures, what they have to say about Esau. We see in Genesis that God made Esau into a mighty nation. He blessed him on earth. He gave him descendants. He gave him a land in which to dwell. He recorded his family tree for all time in the Bible. These are not things you do for someone that you have no sense of love for. These were all gifts that God gave to Esau. So how is this not a contradiction? It's because we say God loved him in one sense and he hated him in another sense. In as much as it regards eternal salvation, God was not pleased to give this to Esau. But in as much as it regarded giving Esau temporal gifts and opportunities to repent, God loved Esau. I don't buy it, Pastor. I don't buy it. It doesn't make sense. I can't deal with these tensions. Think about verses like this. Ezekiel 33, 11 says, say to them, as I live, declares the Lord. He bases this statement on his very being, his essence. I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O House of Israel? I take no pleasure. The word pleasure here is familiar by now. It's the word Boulamite. That is, God does not delight, take joy in or treasure in his heart when a wicked person dies for his sin. Do you believe that about God? Lamentations 333 says, God does not willingly, literally from the heart afflict or grieve the children of men. And it says in Romans 10 and Isaiah 65, God holds out his hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people. I've been noticing this with my little daughter, Anika. I hold out my hands and I say, come give me a hug. She runs away. Comes all the time. When I hold out my hands, it's because I really want to hug, not because I'm deceiving her or something like that. OK. She rejects my wish. The fact of the matter is, God determines before somebody is born to set his love upon, to predestine, to effectually call with the gospel of Jesus Christ, to justify and to glorify one person over another. And this is the difficulty that you are asked to believe, not by me, but by the Bible. If you get caught up in philosophy and rationalism, then you're probably going to have to deny one of these things or the other. But it is not irrational to believe this because there's no logical contradiction here. It is mysterious. I don't deny that. Part of that mystery stems from the fact that God's attributes are indivisible. That is, they cannot be sliced up like a piece of pie that God loves here and is holy here. He can only love or he can only be holy. You can't separate God out like that. We don't understand it because we're tainted with sin. And our pride and our arrogance often gets in the way of understanding how this could work in God, because it doesn't work in us, you see. So now we come to second Peter three nine. What I'm going to say may not make anyone happy here today. I don't know. But I do not believe it's grammatically possible to decide absolutely positively one way or the other on this side of on this debate, exactly which will Peter has in mind here. And I'm not trying to be wishy washy or to, you know, somehow skirt or duct important issue. In fact, I'm trying not to do that. And so the whole first part of the sermon has been about, but I'm being honest with what I see in the text. What are the two positions? OK, again, Armenians will use this to deny that God could possibly decree a thing that does not come to pass. And many Calvinists use it to deny that God cannot possibly decree a thing that does not come to pass. Same thing, both are focused here on the decree. The Armenian believes this verse teaches universal hypothetical salvation. In other words, it's possible, really possible hypothetically for everybody in the world to be saved because God doesn't predestine anyone. Many Calvinists believe it teaches limited atonement because. He believes. God's decreeing salvation here, both are focused on the secret will of God, that's what they have in common. I want to be clear about this. There is one thing this verse does not teach, and that is a hypothetical salvation. Because there is nowhere anywhere in the Bible taught a hypothetical salvation. God does not save everyone, and God does not save everyone hypothetically as if the future were open to him as if more could be saved than the number decreed from all eternity. However, I do want to say But I think that where the Armenian gets some of his ideas here is rest upon a true premise that God loves all people. But I also want to say that that rests upon a false premise, which is that God loves all people equally. That's not biblical. So the Armenian has an agenda that he brings to the text that's based in truth and in error. We reform people ought to recognize the truth while rejecting the error. Because if God is talking about the other will, then God may indeed have a kind of love for all people that may still be in mind, even in this passage here. I say that because. And the passage doesn't actually say what a lot of Calvinists wanted to say, namely that God will bring the any and all to repentance so that they will not perish. If it said that it would be very clear what this passage means that it's talking about the secret will of God. But it doesn't say that it simply expresses a wish or a desire. God does not wish he does not want any to perish, but all to repent. That's all it says. Sort of like God does not want you to lie or steal or commit adultery. Now. The wish or desire might imply that God will bring the any and the all to repentance, but it may not. Depends on what is meant by the wish, kind of a wish is this. Now we've looked at, there are two kinds of wishes. Now we want to try and answer, can we identify which one this is? Does the grammar help solve the problem? Is the context to help? For me, as I was rethinking this passage this week, I found this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. I want to first talk about the pronouns in the passage, because it's the pronouns that bring all the ambiguity in the text, isn't it? And then I want to look at the larger context as we think about the pronouns. Remember, what is a pronoun? What is that second grade English? You can watch Schoolhouse Rock if you forgot. Pronoun stands in the place of a noun. I could say Doug or I could say me. I could say the congregation of Reformed Baptist Church, or I could say you, or all, or any, depending on what I'm trying to say. Or I could say every single person in the world, or I could say all or any here as well. As people like to say, the context determines the meaning of the pronouns. In this verse, there are four pronouns. Most people usually recognize just three. But it's the fourth one that most people don't see that actually creates a big problem. Divide the first into four sections A, B, C and D. Here's the three pronouns we normally think about. In part B, the Lord is patient toward you. Part C, not wishing that any should perish and part D, that all should reach repentance. So the three English pronouns are you, any and all. Now, I think that the you is the easy pronoun to identify. This book was written to believers, and in this section, Peter refers to them twice as beloved in verse one and in verse eight, that comes right before this. It's pretty clear that the you patient towards you refers back to the beloved, because by calling them you, he's referring to the people that are reading the letter. If he was simply addressing everyone in the world, generically would have said something like God is patient towards everyone who would use one of the other pronouns that he uses. More universal pronoun, but in fact, he changes. So understand, I think that the you is the believers that are reading the book, but he changes pronouns in C and D. The verse does not read that God is patient towards you, not wishing that you would perish, but that you would reach repentance. It might mean that, but didn't say that. Instead, Peter changes from you to any and then to the third pronoun all. If there were only three pronouns, I might be inclined to say that the any and the all are the you. And a lot of reformed people say that. But in fact, there's another pronoun that I never find anybody talking about. And it actually comes in the first part of the sentence. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some counts slowness. Some is pronoun. So in English, you have some, you, any and all. In the Greek, they are tennis, hummus, tennis and pantas. Now, the interesting thing is that tennis and tennis are different forms of the same word. Yet English translations make them two different words, and I'm not sure this is appropriate. So really, you have in the Greek only three pronouns after all. But I'll talk about that in a moment. First, I want to identify who the some are in the first part of the verse. Who are they? Who are these some? I think it's the heretics, the false teachers. Some is the pronoun that refers to the people who think God's coming is taking an eternity. To understand this better, you need to read verse eight with verse nine in verse eight, Peter says, with the Lord a day is a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. In other words. Don't you, beloved, think that because the delay of Christ is taking forever, that God is procrastinating, some think that, but you are not to. Now, I don't think this is just guessing on my part. In verse eight, Peter says, Do not overlook this fact. Now, this is important because the exact same word here, do not overlook. Is used in verse five. And only two times it's used in this letter. And in verse five, it very clearly describes those who deliberately overlook the flood. In other words, They overlooked the flood and they overlooked that God's time is not our time, both in order to justify their wickedness. One denies that God has judged the world in the past. The other, that he will judge the world in the future, but you are not to be like those who overlook these things. That's the point of the phrase. Don't be like them. You are not to be like some. Don't think that God is slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, you see. But then it says God does not wish that any should perish. Now, I said at the very beginning, this is the key to the verse. Who are the any? Well, grammatically, it could refer to the you. God is patient towards you, the beloved, not wishing that any of you should perish. It could do that. I admit it. If it does, then Peter is referring to the secret will of God, to the decree of God, to the will that cannot be thwarted. And as we know from other scripture of God, decrees a person to be saved and they will be saved. They will not perish. They will reach repentance. Jesus said, this is the will Of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that has been given me, but raise it up on the last day. So there's nothing absolutely prohibiting this interpretation. It is both theologically acceptable and grammatically possible. On the other hand, it could be that when Peter says that God does not wish that any should perish, that it refers to the revealed will of God, or maybe better to the moral will of God. Because God is holy and he's loving. That's what God is like. He wants others to be like that too. So he gives us commandments, including the commandment to repent and believe in Jesus. In order that we may be like him. And if we do that, then we will not perish, but have everlasting life. Isn't that what the Bible says? So there's exegetical reason to think that Peter might be referring to the breakable will of command. My first reason is that the any and the some are the same pronoun. To make it clearer, we might say that the Lord is not slow as some count slowness. He does not wish that some should perish. That's the literal reading of the Greek, and it makes sense that some would modify some rather than you. If that's the case, then Peter narrows his argument. He says God is patient towards you, and then he narrows it to specifically the some that are in the midst of teaching heresy. But then in part D, he changes the pronoun from some to all, and this is the most inclusive of all the pronouns. He has moved from some to you back to some and finally to all that is, God does not want them to perish. God does not want you to perish. He wants every single person to repent. Now, is it really conceivable to think that God does not want a person to repent? That he loves it when people break his law and sin against him? This is what he says in the law over and over again, for example, in Ezekiel, have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? So in of these two options, I lean slightly in favor of this one, the second one. But I want to note, by the way, that this interpretation is steeply rooted in reformed theology from Thomas Adams to Thomas Manton, to Thomas Boston, to John Murray, to John Piper, to John Calvin. They all take this second view that it refers to everyone, and in fact, Calvinism may have become a bit of an ugly word in our day, in part because I think too many of Calvin's followers has absolutely no idea what he said. But Calvin wrote of this verse, so wonderful is his love towards mankind that he would have them all to be saved and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed that God is ready to receive all to repentance so that none may perish. For in these words, the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. In other words, God is talking about the revealed will, not the secret purpose of God and election, which Calvin raises in the very next paragraph to say, somebody will say to me. This is his answer is the same one found in the original Geneva Bible, by the way, for this verse, he speaketh here not of the secret in eternal counsel of God, whereby he electeth whom it pleases him, but of the preaching of the gospel and all are bidden to the banquet. In other words, Calvin doesn't deny the secret purpose of God in election. I mean, if anything, he's known for that, right? So who cares? Why does this matter? It matters not so much because this verse teaches one side of the tension or the other, but because there's a tension in the first place. And it troubles me when people have a system that they bring to the text and then make every passage fit into the system while conveniently ignoring the tension. Neither historic Calvinist interpretation has to do this, and I'll be clear about that. Whichever way you go, you don't have to avoid the tension. But I think the Armenian interpretation does have to avoid the tension because it doesn't have the categories to deal with it. That is, from reform side, you can believe that God does not delight in the death of the wicked because Ezekiel says that. While honestly believing that this verse doesn't teach that, or you can believe that God predestines whoever he wants, apart from their works, because Romans says it while honestly believing that this verse doesn't teach that. But I fear that all too often that's exactly what we do. Because my opponent uses a verse like this to teach something I so vehemently disagree with, many won't even consider the older reformed view because we can't allow for people to go down a slippery slope. But it's only a perceived slippery slope. It is not dangerous to hold to the two wills of God, because that's what the Bible teaches. It's dangerous to hold to one will. That's where the errors of both of these start that I brought up this morning earlier. Whatever this verse teaches about the secret or revealed will of God, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that both wills reside in God. And this is my point today. And it's a very practical one for you. Because on the one hand, in order to humble you to repentance, God demands that you understand and accept that he is absolute sovereign of the universe and that no purpose of his can be thwarted. This strikes heavily against your arrogance and your pride and your sense of autonomy and independence from him. It attacks the very first sin of Adam and Eve, who sought to do things their way rather than God's. You are not independent of God, friends. You are not autonomous. You are not a little deity running around with more freedom than he has. And coming to grips with this is a very humbling experience. On the other hand, when you do come to grips with it, it's often the case that you tend to read everything in light of the decree, and this can actually be used by you as an excuse to never obey God again. I hear about it all the time from some Calvinistic groups. We're not under law. We don't have to obey the law. Even Calvinists like me are wicked and our hearts are deceitful, above all things. Anyone can use theology for evil purposes, and if you say to yourself, God hasn't predestined me and I don't know why, then you are in rebellion against his stated will that you are to look to Christ and trust to him alone for salvation. That is his revealed will. And if you do that, if you look to Christ for your salvation, you will be saved. Period. And if you say to other people, it doesn't matter whether we preach or tell others about Jesus, because those who are predestined are predestined, then you are in rebellion because God commands that you tell others about him as the only sure means that anyone will be saved. And you better tell people that God means it, that he wants them to be saved, too. And if you say that God predestines everything and therefore he delights in my sin, then you ascribe wicked intent to God when the wickedness is yours and yours alone. Some pretty practical implications from all that, isn't it? The word says they were gathered together against your holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and plan had predestined to take place. Then it says this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. God put him to death and he wasn't wicked because his intention wasn't wicked. It was to save you. Herod and Pilate and the Gentiles and the Jews put him to death, and their intent was wicked. That's where the wicked intent lies. Jesus Christ's coming, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, his second coming are all the ultimate expressions of God's will. He is the nexus in which both wills of God come together perfectly. You say to me, brother, what shall I do? I answer with Peter. When he preached these very things, repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and of eternal life. And know, therefore, that because God has raised up this Jesus by his eternal plan and decree, that no one is able to separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Lord, your word is very humbling. No matter who we are, because we're sinners. Your word is very practical because it attacks our sin and makes us confronted. We've seen in your word difficult things today. Something that many people can't even believe is possible, and so they just reject it outright. But somehow you desire. Deeply within your own heart. That no one on Earth would perish, but that they would all trust in Jesus Christ. And yet somehow You have chosen to bring out of a mass of wicked people some to yourself. And you do this not because you're obligated, but because you are gracious and loving. Lord, I pray that you would help us here today not to focus and dwell on things that we cannot know. And so arrogantly suppose that we can peek into the hidden mind of God. But that you would show us that you really do. Desire the things that we've talked about today and that you would bring about. A mind and an attitude of repentance and a trust in Jesus by faith. And that we would know that anyone who does this will have eternal life. And because that's what your word says. Lord, I would pray that you might seal these things into our minds and our hearts in the communion time to come, where we are reminded very vividly of the death that Jesus underwent so that we might be able to have life. And it's in his name, I pray. Amen.