What do you think?
Rate this book
Does God Desire All to Be Saved?
Are There Two Wills in God?
Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved In this short, theological essay, John Piper builds a scriptural case that God’s unconditional election unto salvation is compatible with God’s genuine desire and offer for all to be saved. Helping us to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical relationship, Piper wisely holds both truths in tension as he explores the Bible’s teaching on this challenging topic, graciously responds to those who disagree, and motivates us to passionately proclaim the free offer of the gospel to all people.
Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved In this short, theological essay, John Piper builds a scriptural case that God’s unconditional election unto salvation is compatible with God’s genuine desire and offer for all to be saved. Helping us to make sense of this seemingly paradoxical relationship, Piper wisely holds both truths in tension as he explores the Bible’s teaching on this challenging topic, graciously responds to those who disagree, and motivates us to passionately proclaim the free offer of the gospel to all people.
64 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2013
75 people are currently reading
686 people want to read
About the author
John Piper
609 books4,626 followersJohn Piper is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
He grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, and studied at Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the University of Munich (D.theol.). For six years, he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and in 1980 accepted the call to serve as pastor at Bethlehem.
John is the author of more than 50 books and more than 30 years of his preaching and teaching is available free at desiringGod.org. John and his wife, Noel, have four sons, one daughter, and twelve grandchildren.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
He grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, and studied at Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the University of Munich (D.theol.). For six years, he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and in 1980 accepted the call to serve as pastor at Bethlehem.
John is the author of more than 50 books and more than 30 years of his preaching and teaching is available free at desiringGod.org. John and his wife, Noel, have four sons, one daughter, and twelve grandchildren.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews
December 28, 2013
Noted Calvinist pastor and theologian John Piper sets out to explore the contentious topic, "Does God desire all to be saved?" He lays out a formidable argument as he describes the two wills of God. Piper gives the example of Eli's rebellious sons who continue in their sin according to the will of God as but one example of God willing what He detests (sin). Piper relies strongly upon certain verses, particularly 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Tim. 2:24-26 to bolster his thesis.
I believe that Arminian theologians would dispute how Piper sometimes characterizes the will of God. They would suggest that God "permits" as opposed to "actively wills" some things to pass. For instance, they would posit that God permits some to continue in sin as opposed to will them to sin; they would accuse the Calvinist of making God the author of evil, something which would tarnish God's perfect goodness and holiness.
Piper also does not spend adequate time reflecting on what unconditional election means to those not chosen. Instead, Piper focuses exclusively on God's glory and justice in electing some and passing over others. A response comes from Arminian scholar Roger Olson who writes, “If God is love (1 John 4:7) but intended Christ’s atoning death to be the propitiation for only certain people so only they have any chance of being saved, then 'love' has no intelligible meaning when referring to God. All Christians agree that God is love. But believers in limited atonement must interpret God’s love as somehow compatible with God unconditionally selecting some people to eternal torment in hell when He could save them (because election to salvation and thus salvation itself is unconditional).”
Piper also falls into the same trap of many critics of Arminianism by claiming that Arminians are fixated on human self-determination. A careful and honest reading of orthodox Arminian theologians would demonstrate that this is simply not the case. I do believe, however, that there is something to the claim that God does allow humans free will (always tied with His gift of prevenient grace) in choosing to follow Him or deny Him. As the Presbyterian theologian and writer Frederick Buechner writes, “And because God's love is uncoercive and treasures our freedom - if above all he wants us to love him, then we must be left free not to love him - we are free to resist it, deny it, crucify it finally, which we do again and again. This is our terrible freedom, which love refuses to overpower so that, in this, the greatest of all powers, God's power, is itself powerless.”
Lastly, Piper insists that we must focus on what Scripture clearly states. He claims we cannot resort to philosophical presuppositions about the limits of human self-determination (p. 53). Yet I would suggest that the idea of God having "two wills" itself requires philosophical speculation.
Does God desire all to be saved? Yes, yes, yes!
I believe that Arminian theologians would dispute how Piper sometimes characterizes the will of God. They would suggest that God "permits" as opposed to "actively wills" some things to pass. For instance, they would posit that God permits some to continue in sin as opposed to will them to sin; they would accuse the Calvinist of making God the author of evil, something which would tarnish God's perfect goodness and holiness.
Piper also does not spend adequate time reflecting on what unconditional election means to those not chosen. Instead, Piper focuses exclusively on God's glory and justice in electing some and passing over others. A response comes from Arminian scholar Roger Olson who writes, “If God is love (1 John 4:7) but intended Christ’s atoning death to be the propitiation for only certain people so only they have any chance of being saved, then 'love' has no intelligible meaning when referring to God. All Christians agree that God is love. But believers in limited atonement must interpret God’s love as somehow compatible with God unconditionally selecting some people to eternal torment in hell when He could save them (because election to salvation and thus salvation itself is unconditional).”
Piper also falls into the same trap of many critics of Arminianism by claiming that Arminians are fixated on human self-determination. A careful and honest reading of orthodox Arminian theologians would demonstrate that this is simply not the case. I do believe, however, that there is something to the claim that God does allow humans free will (always tied with His gift of prevenient grace) in choosing to follow Him or deny Him. As the Presbyterian theologian and writer Frederick Buechner writes, “And because God's love is uncoercive and treasures our freedom - if above all he wants us to love him, then we must be left free not to love him - we are free to resist it, deny it, crucify it finally, which we do again and again. This is our terrible freedom, which love refuses to overpower so that, in this, the greatest of all powers, God's power, is itself powerless.”
Lastly, Piper insists that we must focus on what Scripture clearly states. He claims we cannot resort to philosophical presuppositions about the limits of human self-determination (p. 53). Yet I would suggest that the idea of God having "two wills" itself requires philosophical speculation.
Does God desire all to be saved? Yes, yes, yes!
October 17, 2023
This book was difficult. Very difficult. Despite its short length, within these pages lies very dense theological examination.
Before reading Piper’s work I already subscribed to reformed theology, namely the doctrines of God’s ultimate and complete sovereignty. However, this book still challenged me and forced me to think deeper on my current positions.
It is clear that both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God has the power and desire to save all, yet the point of disagreement is why God doesn’t do this. For the Arminians, they would say that God isn’t willing to encroach upon man’s self-determination and ultimate human free will, and for the Calvinists, that God’s highest purpose is his glory displayed through his absolute sovereignty in showing both wrath and mercy.
Piper describes the two “wills of God”. His will of desire versus his will of decree. God desires all to be saved, yet doesn’t decree it. Just in the same way, the Lord did not take pleasure in the crucifixion of his son, Jesus, yet still decreed it. He didn't take pleasure in the sins committed by those who crucified Jesus, yet still ordained these events sovereignly without being responsible for their sins. Despite the horrific nature of that single situation, the Father's greater glory became fully apparent in that many attained salvation and became children of God. Thus, the crucifixion of Christ was not his “desire”, yet it was his “decree”.
I must admit, while I digested his arguments intellectually, the deeper level of understanding on these topics still feels elusive. I know of them, yet maybe am not fully committed to them. I will have to dive deeper into the scriptures and the works of great theologians to attempt to wrap my finite mind around the inner workings of an infinite being.
Before reading Piper’s work I already subscribed to reformed theology, namely the doctrines of God’s ultimate and complete sovereignty. However, this book still challenged me and forced me to think deeper on my current positions.
It is clear that both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God has the power and desire to save all, yet the point of disagreement is why God doesn’t do this. For the Arminians, they would say that God isn’t willing to encroach upon man’s self-determination and ultimate human free will, and for the Calvinists, that God’s highest purpose is his glory displayed through his absolute sovereignty in showing both wrath and mercy.
Piper describes the two “wills of God”. His will of desire versus his will of decree. God desires all to be saved, yet doesn’t decree it. Just in the same way, the Lord did not take pleasure in the crucifixion of his son, Jesus, yet still decreed it. He didn't take pleasure in the sins committed by those who crucified Jesus, yet still ordained these events sovereignly without being responsible for their sins. Despite the horrific nature of that single situation, the Father's greater glory became fully apparent in that many attained salvation and became children of God. Thus, the crucifixion of Christ was not his “desire”, yet it was his “decree”.
I must admit, while I digested his arguments intellectually, the deeper level of understanding on these topics still feels elusive. I know of them, yet maybe am not fully committed to them. I will have to dive deeper into the scriptures and the works of great theologians to attempt to wrap my finite mind around the inner workings of an infinite being.
August 14, 2019
Does God desire all to be saved? This is a question I had been wrestling with for awhile. I didn’t see how God, who is sovereign over all things, could desire that all people be saved, and yet not everyone is saved. How could a sovereign God not have everything he willed to happen… well, happen?
I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I picked up this tiny 54 page book. I thought I’d find a quick answer to my question, but as Piper says about some of the theologians he admires: “most do not claim to have simple, easy solutions to complex biblical tensions. When their writing is difficult, this is because the scriptures are difficult (p. 41).” While I firmly believe the answer to this question is that YES, God desires for everyone to be saved, the explanation to how this can be true certainly is not so simple.
Piper does a great job in this book of analyzing the question from every angle, comparing conflicting points of view from a wide variety of theologians on the subject, and using a wide variety of scripture to support his every word. I found his explanation and scriptural examples of the two wills of God (God’s will of decree and will of command) to be especially interesting and compelling. I would not say that I completely agree with everything in this book, but that does not take away from the fact that it is extremely well researched, written, and that it is thought provoking. I would recommend this book to anyone who may be struggling with this question, or just anyone interested in learning more about Arminianism, Calvinism, or apologetics/theology in general!
I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I picked up this tiny 54 page book. I thought I’d find a quick answer to my question, but as Piper says about some of the theologians he admires: “most do not claim to have simple, easy solutions to complex biblical tensions. When their writing is difficult, this is because the scriptures are difficult (p. 41).” While I firmly believe the answer to this question is that YES, God desires for everyone to be saved, the explanation to how this can be true certainly is not so simple.
Piper does a great job in this book of analyzing the question from every angle, comparing conflicting points of view from a wide variety of theologians on the subject, and using a wide variety of scripture to support his every word. I found his explanation and scriptural examples of the two wills of God (God’s will of decree and will of command) to be especially interesting and compelling. I would not say that I completely agree with everything in this book, but that does not take away from the fact that it is extremely well researched, written, and that it is thought provoking. I would recommend this book to anyone who may be struggling with this question, or just anyone interested in learning more about Arminianism, Calvinism, or apologetics/theology in general!
March 30, 2021
Everyone who receives Christ has been chosen from the foundation of the world - Page 54
January 4, 2024
Disclaimer: I only listened to this one on Hoopla.
All are evidently not saved, that is united to Christ and freed from the threat eternal punishment. Why is this the case? And does God desire that all should be saved? These are the questions that Piper seeks to answer in this brief book.
Arminians have historically argued that God does want all to be saved but man having ultimate self determination defeats God’s purposes. While such a hypothesis sounds amenable, it isn’t Biblical. The Scriptures teach that God works all things including the number of hairs on our heads, the rise and fall of nations, life and death, and salvation and condemnation according to His will and purpose. In seeing this Biblical truth, some within the Reformed tradition have answered that God does not desire all to be saved. While still within the Reformed tradition, Piper argues that while God does desire all to be saved, yet this desire is not His chief aim. The triune God’s chief aim is His glory. An example of this same idea can be seen in the fact that God desires that all men keep His holy law while at the same time desiring that His law should be violated for His sovereign purposes (i.e. Joseph saving many, Jesus dying for sinners, etc.). The result is a well argued and defended thesis that in one sense God desires all to be saved and yet in another and higher sense does not.
While Piper doesn’t mentioned this, I’ve noticed the same arguments taking place in Spurgeon’s day with Hyper-Calvinists (see Iain Murray’s work) and in the OPC with John Murray surrounding his work The Free Offer of the Gospel. If anyone has seen other places where these arguments have played out historically, please comment on this review as I’d love to be aware of them.
All are evidently not saved, that is united to Christ and freed from the threat eternal punishment. Why is this the case? And does God desire that all should be saved? These are the questions that Piper seeks to answer in this brief book.
Arminians have historically argued that God does want all to be saved but man having ultimate self determination defeats God’s purposes. While such a hypothesis sounds amenable, it isn’t Biblical. The Scriptures teach that God works all things including the number of hairs on our heads, the rise and fall of nations, life and death, and salvation and condemnation according to His will and purpose. In seeing this Biblical truth, some within the Reformed tradition have answered that God does not desire all to be saved. While still within the Reformed tradition, Piper argues that while God does desire all to be saved, yet this desire is not His chief aim. The triune God’s chief aim is His glory. An example of this same idea can be seen in the fact that God desires that all men keep His holy law while at the same time desiring that His law should be violated for His sovereign purposes (i.e. Joseph saving many, Jesus dying for sinners, etc.). The result is a well argued and defended thesis that in one sense God desires all to be saved and yet in another and higher sense does not.
While Piper doesn’t mentioned this, I’ve noticed the same arguments taking place in Spurgeon’s day with Hyper-Calvinists (see Iain Murray’s work) and in the OPC with John Murray surrounding his work The Free Offer of the Gospel. If anyone has seen other places where these arguments have played out historically, please comment on this review as I’d love to be aware of them.
December 21, 2013
Piper does a fantastic job at demonstrating the different wills of God while being exegetically sound. This handbook is a great introduction, that I would probably recommend to anyone first starting down the venture of studying God's unconditional election and limited atonement.
Would definitely suggest this book first, over Dr. Sproul's Chosen by God, since it is more clear, and more concise in its explanatory power--further detailing God's revealed and hidden wills as it exegetes God's election as revealed in Scripture.
A great short read by Dr. Piper.
Brent McCulley
Would definitely suggest this book first, over Dr. Sproul's Chosen by God, since it is more clear, and more concise in its explanatory power--further detailing God's revealed and hidden wills as it exegetes God's election as revealed in Scripture.
A great short read by Dr. Piper.
Brent McCulley
Read
January 22, 2016I won't lie, it is difficult for me to get through Piper without wanting to fling his work across the room a few times... I am not a Calvinist, I cannot see how the argument for double predestination holds legitimate cogency. It requires so much tiresome double talk, this book felt no different. And yet, they say it is wisdom to read those with whom you disagree. I agree, but I can't say I enjoy it.
September 26, 2023
"In the old covenant, the law was written on stone and brought death when it met with the resistance of unrenewed hearts. But the new covenant promise is that God will not let his purposes for a holy people shipwreck on the weakness of human will.”
There are some theological concepts that I am happy to accept without much investigation - unconditional election is one. I've been noticing that I also assume that others would easily accept it, and that isn't always the case. I need more grace here, and have been looking into the topic to help me better explain it.
The most helpful parts of this book were all of the scriptural examples. The 'two wills of God' idea is actually quite novel to me, and although I see how Piper made the biblical case for this, I will have to think about it some more. I don't quite know if I am convinced...
There are some theological concepts that I am happy to accept without much investigation - unconditional election is one. I've been noticing that I also assume that others would easily accept it, and that isn't always the case. I need more grace here, and have been looking into the topic to help me better explain it.
The most helpful parts of this book were all of the scriptural examples. The 'two wills of God' idea is actually quite novel to me, and although I see how Piper made the biblical case for this, I will have to think about it some more. I don't quite know if I am convinced...
October 23, 2024
Good, concise treatment on the subject matter of God’s will as it pertains to His desire to save all, but His sovereign election of some.
Agree or disagree with the finer points of his theology, Piper embodies in his writing the joy and satisfaction of treasuring Christ that is so present in His preaching. I like that.
Agree or disagree with the finer points of his theology, Piper embodies in his writing the joy and satisfaction of treasuring Christ that is so present in His preaching. I like that.
February 23, 2024
This book does a great job at explaining the difference between God’s will of decree and His will of command. God can consistently decree evil while not morally willing it. Where this book seems to fall short is that Piper comes really close to denying divine simplicity.
December 13, 2025
God can desire all to be saved while simultaneously choosing to not save all. Piper did a great job at exploring how both of these concepts can hold true, with accurate referencing of scripture. God's will is displayed in a variety of different forms, which Piper does not claim that this explanation is a means to wrap our minds around the complexity of God-which I appreciate- but to broaden our human perspectives towards the way that God interacts with people throughout scripture. I left this feeling affirmed and more curious in my calvinist beliefs. Recommend
Read
October 26, 2025Just some light plane reading lol
A short book I had saved in my Apple library and thought why not? There is a lot to unpack in this little book. Need to develop my review
A short book I had saved in my Apple library and thought why not? There is a lot to unpack in this little book. Need to develop my review
January 22, 2024
A brief and helpful argument that 1 Timothy 2:4 is expressing God’s will of command, not his will of decree.
October 4, 2022
Lots to chew on!
July 1, 2017
The back cover of this book describes it as a short theological essay. To me, it is more of a book (56 pages). It may be short, but it deals with a profound subject matter that is often immersed in controversy and confusion. I appreciate that Piper shows no timidity, but bravely tries to explain the paradox. His goal is to understand God better, not to bash his opponents. He comes across as approaching an unsearchable and majestic sovereign God with humility. When you approach this subject with humility, there is no room for boasting or superiority. Piper writes, "My prayer is that this book would empower thousands to proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ..."
Purpose of this book: "My purpose in this book has simply been to show that God's will for all people to be saved is not at odds with the sovereignty of his grace in election." Now, there is no simple explanation to this paradox, but Piper takes his time to carefully explain it through the Scriptures.
"I affirm with John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 that God loves the world with a real and sincere compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God has chosen from before the foundation of the world those whom he will save from sin." (P. 53)
Why doesn't God save all human beings? What restrains him? A careful study of this subject will bring you to one of 2 conclusions. Since not all people are saved (that would be universalism, i.e. everyone ends up in heaven eventually), we must choose whether we believe:
1. With the Arminians that God's will to save all people is restrained [limited] by his commitment to ultimate human self-determination (i.e. ultimate free will of man), or
2. With the Reformed that God's will to save all people is restrained [limited] by his commitment to the glorification of his perfections in exalting his sovereign grace.
Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14 show you where the Scriptures stand: "To the praise of his glory."
Piper warns those who take a hasty, logical approach, as many do who end up in arguments about this subject: "This decision should not be made on the basis of philosophical assumptions about what we think human accountability requires. It should be made on the basis of what the Scriptures teach. I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination. As far as I can tell, this is a philosophical presupposition brought to the Bible rather than found in it." (P. 53)
I come away with a greater awe of God after reading this book. It shows me that what is central to God is His glory. Man is not the center of the universe; God is. It shows me the greatness and glory of God and causes me to fear him and admire him more. I have come to understand that any argument which exalts God's sovereignty and presents himself as more glorious puts me on the right path to knowing him and worshipping him.
Purpose of this book: "My purpose in this book has simply been to show that God's will for all people to be saved is not at odds with the sovereignty of his grace in election." Now, there is no simple explanation to this paradox, but Piper takes his time to carefully explain it through the Scriptures.
"I affirm with John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 that God loves the world with a real and sincere compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God has chosen from before the foundation of the world those whom he will save from sin." (P. 53)
Why doesn't God save all human beings? What restrains him? A careful study of this subject will bring you to one of 2 conclusions. Since not all people are saved (that would be universalism, i.e. everyone ends up in heaven eventually), we must choose whether we believe:
1. With the Arminians that God's will to save all people is restrained [limited] by his commitment to ultimate human self-determination (i.e. ultimate free will of man), or
2. With the Reformed that God's will to save all people is restrained [limited] by his commitment to the glorification of his perfections in exalting his sovereign grace.
Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14 show you where the Scriptures stand: "To the praise of his glory."
Piper warns those who take a hasty, logical approach, as many do who end up in arguments about this subject: "This decision should not be made on the basis of philosophical assumptions about what we think human accountability requires. It should be made on the basis of what the Scriptures teach. I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination. As far as I can tell, this is a philosophical presupposition brought to the Bible rather than found in it." (P. 53)
I come away with a greater awe of God after reading this book. It shows me that what is central to God is His glory. Man is not the center of the universe; God is. It shows me the greatness and glory of God and causes me to fear him and admire him more. I have come to understand that any argument which exalts God's sovereignty and presents himself as more glorious puts me on the right path to knowing him and worshipping him.
August 8, 2022
I found this on my computer recently. Apparently I downloaded it at around this time in 2019. It's funny: had I read it then, I might have been somewhat open to its arguments. But now I just can't get past how totally, diabolically wrong he is about some things. He really loses me in chapter two when he starts literalizing the Bible's language about God causing evil; I just can't do that anymore. Maybe I'll eventually read the whole thing, but I don't suppose there would be any point in that exercise.
He refers in a footnote on page 15 to an exchange from the 1980s with Thomas Talbott, which is interesting, because I read (skimmed, really) their back-and-forth before reading the footnote, but if I had read this whole book when I first downloaded it, I would have first heard of Talbott there instead of from a YouTube video whose audio I downloaded and listened to while going for a walk the evening of Saturday 20 June 2020. And now that was already more than two years ago…
Really, the mindset on display in this book is so hideously twisted that it has to come from the devil himself. I can't think of any other explanation.
(Mon 08 Aug 2022 09:49:03 AM CDT)
He refers in a footnote on page 15 to an exchange from the 1980s with Thomas Talbott, which is interesting, because I read (skimmed, really) their back-and-forth before reading the footnote, but if I had read this whole book when I first downloaded it, I would have first heard of Talbott there instead of from a YouTube video whose audio I downloaded and listened to while going for a walk the evening of Saturday 20 June 2020. And now that was already more than two years ago…
Really, the mindset on display in this book is so hideously twisted that it has to come from the devil himself. I can't think of any other explanation.
(Mon 08 Aug 2022 09:49:03 AM CDT)
August 23, 2025
Biblical Theology 4/5
Natural Theology 2/5
Two tourists visit Pompeii, an Arminian and a Calvinist. The Arminian looks at the disaster and says, "God would never want such a terrible evil to occur; it must have been the work of demons or wizards." The Calvinist retorts, "Of course God wanted this to happen, but only so it could show His glory to the upmost." While the Arminian may be laughed at for his ridiculous idea, at least his vision of God is personable and loving. Piper and other Calvinist want to have their cake and eat it too.
Piper argues God wants all to be saved, He just wants some to go to hell a little more but therein lies the issue most Christians have with Calvinism: it makes God the author of all evil. This book serves as a way to clear up the contradiction seemingly present with God have two contradictory wills. I think in large part, Piper does this by establishing a hierarchy, but by doing so, he creates a second issue.
Imagine you were invited to have your painting hung at an art show. You submit your painting, but when you get there, you cannot find it hanging. The director tells you that they hung your painting on a wall, but afterwards, they hung a larger painting overtop of yours, so it's hidden behind it. Piper argues that your painting is still technically present at the art show, so you have no reason to be upset. This is absurd, as the reason anyone wants their painting hung at the art show is for people to be able to see it, but no one will see your painting. In the same way, the entire sense of a 'will' enables it to have some causal power, which Piper's 'moral will' fails to perform, as it is always superseded by the 'sovereign will.' No one cares for a painting hidden behind another, and no one should care for a will overruled by another.
Perhaps I'm too much of a pragmatist, as to some, the ontological question surrounding the 'moral will' may truly be interesting. Piper peppers every sentence with biblical references, which makes his argument nearly impenetrable to anyone who follows sola scriptura, but to the Thomist entrenched in reason, this book will do little to convince them.
Natural Theology 2/5
Two tourists visit Pompeii, an Arminian and a Calvinist. The Arminian looks at the disaster and says, "God would never want such a terrible evil to occur; it must have been the work of demons or wizards." The Calvinist retorts, "Of course God wanted this to happen, but only so it could show His glory to the upmost." While the Arminian may be laughed at for his ridiculous idea, at least his vision of God is personable and loving. Piper and other Calvinist want to have their cake and eat it too.
Piper argues God wants all to be saved, He just wants some to go to hell a little more but therein lies the issue most Christians have with Calvinism: it makes God the author of all evil. This book serves as a way to clear up the contradiction seemingly present with God have two contradictory wills. I think in large part, Piper does this by establishing a hierarchy, but by doing so, he creates a second issue.
Imagine you were invited to have your painting hung at an art show. You submit your painting, but when you get there, you cannot find it hanging. The director tells you that they hung your painting on a wall, but afterwards, they hung a larger painting overtop of yours, so it's hidden behind it. Piper argues that your painting is still technically present at the art show, so you have no reason to be upset. This is absurd, as the reason anyone wants their painting hung at the art show is for people to be able to see it, but no one will see your painting. In the same way, the entire sense of a 'will' enables it to have some causal power, which Piper's 'moral will' fails to perform, as it is always superseded by the 'sovereign will.' No one cares for a painting hidden behind another, and no one should care for a will overruled by another.
Perhaps I'm too much of a pragmatist, as to some, the ontological question surrounding the 'moral will' may truly be interesting. Piper peppers every sentence with biblical references, which makes his argument nearly impenetrable to anyone who follows sola scriptura, but to the Thomist entrenched in reason, this book will do little to convince them.
February 28, 2025
I remember the first time I thought through this question and I couldn’t fathom any other answer than “Absolutely, yes.” The follow up question to this is that if God absolutely desires all to be saved, why are any not saved? This proved to be a much more difficult answer to come up with and it pushed me down the road towards the doctrines of grace, also known as Calvinism. Pitting the will of the God of all creation vs the will of man is a battle that is over before it begins.
Piper explores this question and the immediate implications of this doctrine and does it in short form. The brevity of this book means that it is a great option to hand out to those exploring this doctrine without making them feel like they were just assigned Homework due tomorrow morning. I am still convinced of the fact that if I could not affirm Calvinism, my only other realistic option is to be agnostic. That is a pretty bombastic way to end a book review, but I believe it simply to be consistent with our conclusions about the power and will of the all-powerful God in light of our wills and abilities.
Piper explores this question and the immediate implications of this doctrine and does it in short form. The brevity of this book means that it is a great option to hand out to those exploring this doctrine without making them feel like they were just assigned Homework due tomorrow morning. I am still convinced of the fact that if I could not affirm Calvinism, my only other realistic option is to be agnostic. That is a pretty bombastic way to end a book review, but I believe it simply to be consistent with our conclusions about the power and will of the all-powerful God in light of our wills and abilities.
September 29, 2019
I really do applaud piper for taking on the task of writing such a short book on such a dense and difficult topic. Overall, I think he did a good job explaining the “two wills” means of resolving some of the tension between diverse passages of scripture. It is clear his heart is to do complete justice to scripture and to lead others to a deeper knowledge of (and thus a deeper love for) God. I do think that it could have used a few more practical guidelines - for example, how believing these truths affects the way we do evangelism - but overall this was a solid and thought-provoking read.
September 6, 2020
As is his custom, Piper is fundamentally committed to declaring what the scriptures teach. He concurs that God’s offer and desire for all to be saved is genuine. It’s great he doesn’t run from the rather straightforward texts suggesting this by talking about “kinds” of men. Further, he’s willing to acknowledge this is often a challenging position, but not an incoherent one. At the end he helpfully identifies what fundamental commitments Calvinists and Arminians attribute to God to explain the historical reality that not all men are saved. The former say God is working out a supremely higher demonstration of his manifold glory, whereas the latter maintain God is upholding libertarian free will. Piper cites several Reformed thinkers to support his position including Charnock, Dabney, and Edwards. Written above typical lay level, but not a technical or academic work.
October 10, 2024
A short book in favor of the reformed view of Gods will for “all to be saved”. Piper obviously does not hold back his view and pushes for that however I believe he expertly articulates both views while showing why he finds himself in the reformed camp in opposition to the Arminian viewpoint. Why I agreed with Piper to begin with this book ,while small, better articulated this than I could. I especially enjoyed the footnotes and few word studies that Piper speaks on that I see to be highly beneficial in discussion with Arminians surrounding key passages used to support their viewpoint.
May 28, 2017
The question expressed in the title of the book is a result of two apparently conflicting biblical truths: (1) that God desires the salvation of all people, and (2) that God chooses to save some and not others. It would seem that one of these could be true and the other would therefore have to be false. In his short book, Piper argues well for the validity of both. God does choose to save some people and not others, and yet, at the same time, God has a genuine desire for all to be saved.
February 27, 2021
I agreed with most of the conclusions in this book, however, if I were not more versed in this debate already, it could have proved not beneficial to swim in what seems like a big pool of paradox. I recently heard Sproul dig into the doctrine of providence (granted not just as it relates to salvation) and I liked his approach a bit better.
December 31, 2022
**4.5 and not 5 only because I really wish it was longer. I left this brief introduction to election and predestination hungry for more. I’d recommend this to anyone searching to navigate what they believe regarding predestination and election. There is much to learn about God’s heart behind predestination and election, and I’m excited to keep diving in!
April 17, 2024
The richness in a text that is so simplistic is such a characteristic of Piper's writings, and this one was no different. If you are struggling with this concept as a Christian, this is a wonderful, short book that will help you understand and also dispute other ideas. My personal favorite quotes are below.
"I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination."
"But the New Covenant promise is that God will not let his purposes for a holy people shipwreck on the weakness of human will."
"...the only knowledge worth having in the end is knowledge that leads to love-love for God and for people."
"I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination."
"But the New Covenant promise is that God will not let his purposes for a holy people shipwreck on the weakness of human will."
"...the only knowledge worth having in the end is knowledge that leads to love-love for God and for people."
August 12, 2022
Piper talks about how we view "God's will for all people to be saved is not at odds with the sovereignty of His grace in election"
A little confusing at points, will most likely reread again and take notes
A little confusing at points, will most likely reread again and take notes
February 11, 2023
Great depth in a singular subject for such a concise little book. I do wish it was a little longer. Now I want to read the other side of the argument. Maybe something by Roger Olsen?
July 9, 2022
Interesting essay on how, from a Reformed viewpoint, God can elect individuals to salvation and simultaneously desire all men to come to Him.
June 20, 2023
good book
April 23, 2024
Really enjoyed "climbing this mountain" with John Piper as he helps reconcile the tension between God's will for all to be saved and unconditional election in this short (and free) 50-page book. Short answer: God does want to save everyone.
BUT there is something else he wants even more: to display the full range of his glory.
The book cleared up some misconceptions I had about Reformed Theology. The Potters Freedom made me think that the general reformed position was that God just plainly does NOT desire all people to be saved (in any sense). This misconception was due to the alternate interpretations that James White came up with for texts such as 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 where he interprets the "all" in these texts in ways other than "every single person in the world". (If he went to all that effort does that mean James White believes that God does NOT desire all to be saved in any sense and he differs with John Piper on this?? He doesn't even mention the different wills of God in The Potters Freedom at all I'm pretty sure arghh.)
Every point John Piper makes is backed up by so much scripture, it's hard to see how a case can be made for the opposite.
Key takeaways:
God has two wills: his sovereign will ("wide lens") and his moral will ("narrow lens"). Piper makes a seemingly undeniable case for this from various passages in Scripture.
Yes, God DOES desire all to be saved (Matthew 23:37 [different interpretation to James White], Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:22). It is his moral will that all be saved.
Both the Reformed and Arminians affirm the two wills of God and both can say that God wills for all to be saved. Both agree that the reason why all are not saved is that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. The difference is what they say this higher commitment is:
Arminians: human self-determination and the possible love relationship with God (philosophical presupposition that cannot be backed up by Scripture).
Calvinists: the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Rom 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor 1:29).
BUT there is something else he wants even more: to display the full range of his glory.
The book cleared up some misconceptions I had about Reformed Theology. The Potters Freedom made me think that the general reformed position was that God just plainly does NOT desire all people to be saved (in any sense). This misconception was due to the alternate interpretations that James White came up with for texts such as 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 where he interprets the "all" in these texts in ways other than "every single person in the world". (If he went to all that effort does that mean James White believes that God does NOT desire all to be saved in any sense and he differs with John Piper on this?? He doesn't even mention the different wills of God in The Potters Freedom at all I'm pretty sure arghh.)
Every point John Piper makes is backed up by so much scripture, it's hard to see how a case can be made for the opposite.
Key takeaways:
God has two wills: his sovereign will ("wide lens") and his moral will ("narrow lens"). Piper makes a seemingly undeniable case for this from various passages in Scripture.
Yes, God DOES desire all to be saved (Matthew 23:37 [different interpretation to James White], Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:22). It is his moral will that all be saved.
Both the Reformed and Arminians affirm the two wills of God and both can say that God wills for all to be saved. Both agree that the reason why all are not saved is that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. The difference is what they say this higher commitment is:
Arminians: human self-determination and the possible love relationship with God (philosophical presupposition that cannot be backed up by Scripture).
Calvinists: the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Rom 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor 1:29).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews