Implications from Free Will on the Doctine of Interpretation

Order In Nature:

It is true, is it not, that God is not the author of confusion?

It then follows that God is a God of order. One of the greatest witnesses to this reality is something scientists refer to as the "Principle of the Uniformity of Nature." In the history of science in the West, many of the early scientists were Christians or at the least- Deists. What spurred them on to try and make intelligent sense out of nature was based on their confidence, their faith if you will, that- just as God is a God of order- so too that order would be inherent in his creation-  in nature. That is what gave them confidence to do science. They knew that God is the source of nature and they had already perceived the inherent order in God through philosophy, theology and metaphysics. This lay behind their readiness to delve into the complexities of that nature beyond mere appearances. Therefore, they were sure it would, with patient effort and unbiased experimentation yield her secrets. Mankind is an intelligent being of consciousness, capacity for reason, methodological study, logic and determination not to mention imagination, it is through these capacities and recognizing those same characteristics within God, that their expectations of finding nature built upon those same characteristics would be rewarded.

It is because of these facets of mankind- the Imago Deo  (the image of God) that even scientists with a bias against the reality of God recognize this order in nature. God created the heavens and all therein with qualities that reflect his own nature and none more so than in humankind- his special creation; being the only part of created order said to be made in his image and bearing the marks of person-hood. This is why the creation is intelligible to us.  The heavens declare the Glory of God. The order and the intelligibility of God is reflected by the same qualities in the Natural order and these things are made searchable to us by virtue of the fact we are made in his image.

Scientists, it must be remembered, are human beings prior to their becoming scientific, so that they do not come into the realm of science without preconceived ideas. So inevitably they come to the supposed neutral ,objective and unbiased realm of science with a preconceived view of reality. They take their philosophy into science and read and understand nature through this philosophy. Now if they happen to be people that presuppose God does not exist, then all the science they do will obviously appear to them to support their philosophy. So that the order and coherence undeniably inherent in nature is already determined as pure chance, and that the random collocation of events that make up the history of the universe, whether human history or cosmological history is perceived to be without any ordering and primal cause, not by the evidence but by suppression of the evidence forced upon their minds by this intractable view that God does not exist. The Bible has a very apt explanation for  this:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  Romans 1:18-25

Order in the Supernatural:

It should therefore come as no surprise that theology, the study of the supernatural realm has, inherent in its nature this same order, coherence and cohesion. From this primary understanding of this ordered nature has arisen Systematic Theology which seeks to understand God in all his relations within himself, towards mankind and the creation in general.

"Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. It is also called Dogmatics"- Wikipedia.

The Requirements for Understanding Nature:

It is informative to ponder how one embarks on a journey to plumb the depths of nature. The early scientists, that is those from whom we have inherited the scientific method were in the main primarily philosophers. Understandably, in the early beginnings of today's scientific revolution, science used to be called natural philosophy,the precursor to the sciences of today.  These thinkers of an earlier time were known collectively as the "empiricists" from whom came the "Empirical Method". What, we may ask, was so vital in their methodology that ensured the obvious and sustained successes that epitomizes how we think of science today? (At least when they stick to their area of expertise!)

According to the University of Illinois at Chicago the following are the principles of science.

1. From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).
2. Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.
3. Devise experiments to test the hypotheses.
4. All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.
5. Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
6. Further modify and repeat the experiments.

It is absolutely imperative that we examine the 6 points above. Taken as a whole the six points are themselves a hypothesis about the nature of the scientific method.They constitute a hypothesis about the hypotheses involved in conducting science. Here is a definition of a hypothesis:

"A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth".

As the Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feinman reminded students,

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

The aim of science, (as it is in all of our attempts to understand reality) is to maximize objectivity, minimize bias and eliminate altogether or allow for assumptions.
The 6 points above constitute a hypothesis about the hypotheses involved in conducting science. Surely if the scientific method is essential for knowledge then we might reasonably expect that the hypothesis put forward to define the scientific method to stand up to its own strictures, its own test for truth. Shouldn't the scientific method as outlined in the six points, itself be scientific?

But what happens when we ask that of point number four? What happens when we ask if point number four is itself scientifically proven? Has point number four been empirically tested? Is it testable in laboratory conditions? No it isn't, therefore, under its own terms, it fails as a scientific hypothesis. It is a philosophical assumption. Is it therefore wrong to demand that "All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable" ? Scientists are divided on this issue, but in deference to consistency, the question will not go away. This is the achilles heel of empiricism.

The reality is that some assumptions are unable to be proven "scientifically". The persuit of science is just one aspect of humankinds search for the understanding of reality, in this case it narrows that search into understanding material reality. But empiricism is not the most fundamental toolbox in this search. The ability to reason is. Therefore philosophy, and its focus on logic, and reasoning is a prerequisite of good science. Philosophers understand that there have to be starting points for every search, there have to be some basic assumptions that are in the nature of the case, untestable without resorting to circular reasoning. For instance how do we know that some grasp of logical reasoning is necessary in any search for truth? Any answer to that question must use some argument from logic itself, and therefore, as much as it does, it will be circular.

While the above six points may seem to be adequate there is also a lot left unsaid. What are some of the assumptions? Firstly one must not only be close enough to the system- the natural world, to make observations but one needs to rise above the natural world in order to find objectivity in the observations made. Someone under a microscope is hardly in a good position to make accurate observations about the microscope. As C.S. Lewis said:

"A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet."  

The point Lewis is making is that in order to make meaningful statements of truth (like being wet) one must in some sense transcend nature. Through the fish being totally immersed (and consequently totally wet), it puts "wetness" beyond the comprehension of fish. This means that "self consciousness" is a presupposition to knowing things objectively. Therefore one must in some way be able to rise above ones own nature in order to make observations about oneself or nature with any sort of objectivity.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Truly one needs special training to inquire into things that lie beyond the obvious in nature, but what has already been presupposed is that special conditions within our own nature are necessary by which to observe the nature we are a part of.

In a way Sociologist Peter Berger reflected a similar truth when he said:

'Unlike puppets we have the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved. In this act lies the first steps towards freedom.' 

 But there are problems with his view as well. "the machinery by which we have been moved" is surely an admission of being limited and determined by a nature in some way just as the fish couldn't know "wetness". But essentially what he has said is right. We can understand and see this limitation and that in itself- if not a source of misery- is at least a source of angst. We are aware that we are not totally free but we yearn for that type of existence. This is reminiscent of more Lewisania:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I can find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not mean that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” [2] “For we are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. ‘How he’s grown!’ we exclaim, ‘How time flies!’ [we say,] as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined to become, one day, a land animal.”

 The Requirements for Understanding the Supernatural:

If it is indeed true that all of nature, the whole Universe is the result, that is, came into being by the actions of a "Super-nature" (God) then it readily follows that in order to understand and make meaningful truth statements about this supernatural realm would not merely require special training on our part, (like the six points required for natural science above ). No, there would need to be a change in our own nature, allowing us to rise above the natural world though still being part of it. It is this necessary change in our nature that is referred to by St. Paul, and without which we are just inadequately equipped to speak meaningfully about that which lies beyond nature:

 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (emphasis mine)

We find then that in order to make meaningful statements about the natural Universe humanity had to have been especially fitted in his own nature to make these observations- to do science. And it is by this capacity that science was able to be developed.

As in the natural so too in the supernatural. Only now there is this difference. We find that the nature that we are endowed with merely by being born human is not adequate, not sufficient for knowing spiritual realities. We must undergo a metamorphosis like the monarch caterpillar. Just as a monarch caterpillar is by nature not fitted for flight so too, the natural man cannot comprehend spiritual realities. We must be "born again", we must be "born of the spirit" to apprehend spiritual truth. With this firmly planted in our understanding we then may observe that no matter how free a person deems himself to be- he or she is not free to know God so long as their human nature remains unchanged, unconverted or unregenerate whatever term you wish to use. To worship God, to honor God, to know God requires a real change in human nature.  It is not just that a natural human being is unwilling to know God and give him his dues, it is an impossibility for him or her just as caterpillar cannot fly. Free will (which is already assumed by humankind) makes this boast of having a natural ability to worship God in Spirit and in truth. This is a contradiction in terms. Humanity by nature, and this is observable in any part of the world, and at any time during recorded history, has had this desire to worship. Humankind is always worshipping something. It's innate. The problem being that humankind without the advocacy of the Holy Spirit, cannot know truly whom it seeks to worship.

So here lies the first and most important requirement for understanding the supernatural: that of a new nature. However the problems don't end here. Having "been born of the spirit" we become a person of two natures that are at war within us.

 "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."        Galatians 5:17

So now that even though our darkened understanding is now enlightened that we may perceive the reality of God and spiritual truths- we still have a principle at war within us impinging on our freedom: you cannot do the things that you would. 
 We also find through the scripture that in one sense this is also not a level playing field. Suppose you are a fully matured (in the natural sense) human being (say 30 years old) when you came to Christ. What that means is that you have had many years of thinking purely in human terms, many years of habitual thinking that have set you in ways of seeing and relating to the world and all that you know as real along a naturalistic framework. Your thinking in terms of spiritual realities is say, only one year old.

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:1 

And so again we see our "free will" is still not so free as we would like to make out. We are not even free enough to understand what Paul would like to say to us. He has had to speak to us in human terms about spiritual realities because we are still so used to thinking along a naturalistic framework of thought. He had to modify his language for our sake just as we do when speaking to our young children. When a child asks a question do we give the full explanation? No we give a very simple one commensurate with their level of understanding and we speak in terms that they would understand in order to help them apprehend that which they otherwise would not. Jesus also said as much about our ability to understand when he said just before his Crucifixion:

 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12

Here is an example of Paul speaking spiritual realities to carnally minded Christians:

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." Galations 3:15

When he said "I speak after the manner of men" what other way could he speak? He surely didn't mean he wasn't a man but was trying to imitate one. No, he was speaking in human terms about human relations in order to teach a spiritual reality. So by analogous human terms- in the natural realm if someone makes a promise and puts it in writing, and consequently the promise is affirmed that it is not a forgery, a fake- then no other, nothing else subsequently has the right or ability to set aside or change the promise. So if this holds good in reference to human promises, how much more so when given in divine spiritual relations.

We find then that not only do we need a new nature in order to understand God and spiritual truths we also need time in order to grow.

 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Ephesians 4:13

 So we see then there are compounded problems in our search for objective truth regarding spiritual realities. We need to over come the limitations on our nature imposed on us by being descendants of Adam affected by the fall from grace; by being  born again. We need to overcome the years of living and thinking along purely natural frameworks of thinking by being renewed in the spirit of our mind not according to the worlds principles but by the word of God. We need to do battle with the old nature that exists side by side with the new spiritual life given by God, and we need to be nurtured and brought up to spiritual maturity.

Therein lies a great difficulty for God to overcome our ignorance. He has decreed (I think this is generally agreed) that the canon of the Bible is now closed. We are told his word is sufficient for all our needs from babyhood to mature Christian:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The General Sufficiency and Economy of the Word of God:

We know that spiritual babes exist alongside spiritual adolescents and one would hope that there are spiritual adults in the world as well. How does that same word- which for some must be milk, and for others soft food, and for still others be meat, how does it be all things to all people? How does it achieve this when the Bible is the same for everyone? The answer lies within the capacity of the people involved.

"Though he were a Son, ... Called of God an high priest ... Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Hebrews 5:8-13

The celebrated Christian author, cultural analyst and apologist Frances Schaeffer

“The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.” -A Christian Manifesto

I believe what he said also applies to a Christians' use of the word of God as is also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews. We see things in bits and pieces, both the world around us and the world beyond us- the spiritual realm we see in bits and pieces rather than as a cohesive whole. This must be so otherwise the inherent contradictions in what many believe would be manifest to us. For example we would be able to see that the idea of God making good his promise to:

 "... build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18-

would be impossible to fulfill against a background of total libertarian freedom that most of evangelical Christianity espouses when they think of "free will". What is the Church but a group of individuals in possession of mind, will and emotions? If that individual will is perfectly free, then how can God's guarantee be fulfilled? If he cannot guarantee salvation of the individual- how then that of the whole?  How could his promise be made good? The God of Abraham is a God of miracles but not the God of nonsense. The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind sees as false. Or as John Locke said:

"He that believes, without having any reason for believing may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays obedience due to his maker."

Fortunately this glaring inconsistency of belief does not change the reality, God does infallibly continue to save to the uttermost those for whom Christ died. But what this clinging to of ideas originating in natural philosophy does do to the church- is to keep her a perpetual child. And this admixture of natural philosophy with Biblical principles causes a confused and inconsistent pattern through which the scriptures are interpreted.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 

Far from being an excuse for remaining a permanent child St. Paul promises, or rather the Holy Spirit through Paul promises clarity and maturity of vision in the future. The perfection of that may indeed lie on the other side of this life but as this verse shows we are to expect spiritual growth and clarity of vision.

 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11 

What are the childish things but those that we knew in our pre-Christian era, or those things that we believed in our Christian infancy? A carry over from the worldly experience of life.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."2 Corinthians 5:17

We Ought to be Challenged by Inconsistency and Paradox:

In the natural order we find that helium has the same properties on earth as it does in the far flung corners of the Universe. And if we find anomalies with the nature of gravity here, it will hold true for the nature of gravity everywhere. So too in the supernatural. If through carrying over a natural understanding from the carnal realm we misunderstand God's plan and misconstrue his purposes in a particular place the whole tenor of scripture is affected. They are a coherent whole and a distortion anywhere becomes a distortion of the whole, though the effect on the whole is less overall than the effect of the distortion in the one particular truth.

One can liken it to a photo-shopped image. What is God like? How do we know that the "image" of God we hold in our heads is the real deal?  Just as a photo-shopped image may differ in small undetectable ways from the true and totally accurate image; we may hold a distortion in our heads which doesn't truly comprehend what God is like in some way.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2 

We as his children read his word but we read his word through a mind that is not completely transformed and therefore attempt to understand spiritual realities through the lens of a carnal mind.

 When looking at photographs of people, we can recognize those we have perhaps briefly met or known as a passing acquaintance, but with certain limitations. With this sort of acquaintance it would be easy to line up a group of photos which all looked reasonably the same- so the subject was recognizable in all, but with minor differences introduced by editing properties of the picture. Only if the subject were intimately known by that person would those differences be discernible.

Someone once said that if all pianos were tuned by the same perfect piano tuning fork then they would all be in tune. But not only in tune with it, they would all be in tune with each other. Is this not what God intends by  "the unity of the faith"?

His plan for salvation follows in an orderly fashion; as with the natural so too there is order in the supernatural. His Word is logical and reasonable even if it is untenable for some, or unreachable for others, it may be mysterious and unimaginable to the natural mind, and yet under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, divine revelation manifests the unsearchable riches of Christ. But in the supernatural (the spiritual realm),there is a caveat which Paul describes here:

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."Corinthians 2:14 N.I.V.

In order to understand the true nature of spiritual realities one must be born of the spirit of God.
It is for this reason that a college professor with multiple degrees may wax long and eloquently on God, theology, scriptures and even salvation and completely miss the mark. Conversely a very young person may know more of God in a real sense. Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel and yet knew not how essential it was "to be born again."

In the early Universities (which Christianity promoted) theology was considered the queen of all the disciplines. That is- that the knowledge of God was what rendered all the knowledge of everything else intelligible and tied all that diversity into unity. This is where we get the name uni-versity. Unity in diversity. From this it follows there can be no real contradiction in his Word, it is our preconceived ideas and natural  understanding (as opposed to spiritual) that gets in the way. That is not to say that there is nothing difficult to understand, or that some things appear very much like contradictions. That too is part of the reason for theology, to understand and tease out those difficulties.

Remembering the words Christ spoke on earth shortly before his return to where he had come from we also understand another reason why there appear to be these contradictions:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:12-13

The written Word of God- the Bible is, as one Pastor put it by an an acronym-  "Believers Instructions Before Leaving Earth" So this Word represents all that God wishes us to know from our spiritual infancy to our spiritual maturity.

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" Ephesians 4:13

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" 1 Peter 2:2

"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." 1 Corinthians 3:2 

Inviolable Immutable Characteristics Basic To Who God Is:

It is for this reason that these lines are written, to make clear, with God's help, and without contradiction, certain verses which have given rise to a distorted view of salvation.
While the idea of universal salvation appears reasonable and attractive, because it is not in fact based on the reality of God's word, it gives rise to disastrous consequences in our thinking, particularly in regard to the power of God. While all Christians maintain a vestige of appreciation for the omnipotence of God, (to say nothing of the fear of God, or the sovereignty of God) a closer examination will show that with many this is little more than lip service, especially when the following verses are not taken seriously. Christ warns us not to judge according to appearances!

In short then, do we truly believe that God accomplishes all that he sets out to do?:

(Isaiah 46:10) ....... My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:11) ........:yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

And also: (Hebrews 6:17) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

These verses affirm the omnipotence of God. Everything he sets out and determines to do, comes to pass, it gets done- period. His plan, or his counsel is immutable, unchangeable as Hebrews confirms, and therefore he is trustworthy, irrefutable, and in an ultimate sense, irresistible. I emphasize in an ultimate sense. This understanding is underscored by countless verses throughout the Bible and is foundational to his nature, to who he is. It is imperative we understand in the depths of our heart that these things are so. Then when any other doctrine or teaching challenges these basic premises, we ought to raise our eyebrows and seriously consider the validity of what is being said and taught.
Let me reiterate what main points we have agreed upon so far: (Speaking to those who agree the Bible is authoritative.)
God is not the author of confusion.
God does not contradict himself.
God is as good as his Word, he is what he says he is, and he is true to what he says he will do.
God does not change, the same yesterday today and forever.
His omniscience and omnipotence ensures whatsoever he decides to do, comes to pass.
 These concepts are properly basic to our understanding of who God is and what he is like.

Now with these concepts concreted into our understanding consider this apparent contradiction: Time and again 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 are quoted (in fact misquoted) as verses which are supposed to reinforce the idea of universal salvation. By that I mean, the thought that God's plan is to save each and every human being. Now while not against the idea per se , it may sound an awesome display of the love of God, but does it fit the reality of God's word and the reality of experience? While we are not making experience the foundation of all that we believe it is still valuable to observe our experiences in the light of scripture.
Is it not our experience that all are not saved? And are there not scriptures that point to a reality that not all are God's people,  that not all are saved?

 

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." Matthew 13:40

Why The Contradiction, How is it Dissolved?

Now remember the above five points, if you are in agreement with them, then the meaning of the following verses ought to be reconsidered:

(1 Timothy 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Peter 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Is it conceivable that the Mighty God of Heaven and Earth- who merely spoke to the void and all creation obeyed by coming into being, is it really possible, that if he determines that all mankind are to be saved, is it not seen to be contrary to the very nature of God that this should not happen? In other words, if he has planned it to happen, must it not happen according to his mighty power? Isn't this self evident?  Must we not either re-interpret his nature (omnipotence, omniscience, sovereignty etc) or re-interpret these verses?

At this point I anticipate certain objections. Namely: Mankind are a special case:

Has not God  limited his power in order to make man responsible for his actions?

Didn't God in the garden of Eden intend Adam and Eve to obey him and yet they didn't?

Doesn't that require us to modify or limit God's omnipotence?

Mustn't we then acknowledge his power and omnipotence as supreme in all things with the exception of the will of man?

Why can't we say his power is over all circumstances with the exception he himself has created with regard to salvation?

I answer these objections:
Here again we are running contrary to the express intention and declaration of scripture, particularly with regard to salvation, and remember (John 10:35) ....the scripture cannot be broken;-
(Isaiah 59:1) Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: Wherever there is mention of the Lord's hand or arm we understand it to be speaking specifically of his power.So his power is not reduced by the will of man that he cannot save.
(John 17:2) As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. If one of those he had predestined to save could refuse eternal life then how could the above verse be true? The verse would then have to read: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should offer eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
(Hebrews 7:25) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. How could we trust in that promise if at a mere mans whim his plan could be foiled?
(Matthew 16:18) ...... I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. What is the Church? Is it not the body of true believers made up of individuals? But if one of those individuals intended for salvation didn't make it for whatever reason, then how could it be true to say the gates of hell had not prevailed?

Why is it that most of Evangelical Christianity (like virtually all of secular humanity) would far rather escape from the horns of this dilemma by reducing...no by domesticating God in his power and ability in order to keep this sense of his own superiority over God?

What shall we say then of these two verses that seemingly contradict his omnipotent, perfect and sovereign will ? It is clear that we must read 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 with an understanding of that word “all” as being within certain qualifications. Either that or we will subconsciously re-interpret the meaning of His power as being something much less than what it really is. What then, happens, to the prayer of faith?

How can we consistently pray for an individuals salvation when we believe in the absolute, inviolable will of man?
Fortunately the Holy Spirit, when He prays through us, pays no heed to neither our private interpretation of scripture nor our inconsistency!

Verses like this become obscure and minimized:

(Ephesians 1:11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (emphasis mine)

How interesting that the little word “all” is in that verse minimized and made of no account in the minds of those who believe in the sovereignty of man over and above the sovereignty of God. If God works all things according to his own purposes, then why do they insist that God is unable to work his will through the will of unwilling man?
This is tantamount to saying:
Premise 1 - Pharaoh refused God
Premise 2 - Pharaoh is a man.
Conclusion - Therefore all men can thwart Gods plan.

The very point of the Story about Pharaoh's continued unwillingness is that God did work his plan out- not despite Pharaoh's unwillingness but through his unwillingness. So in this instance negatively we can see God's plan achieved by his unwillingness. In the following verse we also see God working out his plan positively by working willingness in the subject:

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."Philippians 2:13

We see in Ephesian 1:11 that in perfect keeping with the context of this verse, that the scriptures are speaking of salvation here. God has purposed ahead of time (that is what predestined means) that his elect (his chosen people) are "in Christ" and gain the inheritance he has promised. A true understanding of Romans 8:28 may be found in a comparison with this verse. God is not a patch-up God! It is clear when the full effect of this verse is understood that even mankind's disobedience is according to his deeper plan as the following example illustrates.(And what example could be more important?)

(Acts 4:27-28) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus .......both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Emphasis mine) 

Even evil, unbelief and disobedience work together to accomplish the will of God!
No wonder then that Paul exclaimed:

“For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)

And lo, what have we here? That little word "all" pops up three times. Notice first, all are in unbelief, here at last the word is without exception! (well don't include Christ!) And second, what is God's purpose?- that he might have mercy upon all. Now we must be careful- God cannot show mercy to someone who deserves salvation, how could it be termed mercy anymore, mercy is no longer mercy. So all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23) so that he might have (if he so wills) mercy on anyone. The word “all” is qualified by the word “might”

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”(Romans 9:15-16) 

Here the sovereignty of God is at work, so that “it is not of him that willeth” but repentance and faith happens only “.......... if God peradventure” (perchance) “will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Timothy 2:25). Thirdly, we notice the word "all" pertains to- well everything, it all originated in him, every circumstance is made possible by him, and everything must answer to him. All glory to him. Amen.

These two verses (1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 )are the main verses that appear to support the idea of universal salvation, as opposed to the whole tenor of scripture that declares:

(Acts 2:39) For the promise (of eternal life) is unto you, and to your children,(Jews) and to all that are afar off, (Gentiles) even as many as the Lord our God shall call. It is apparent that the general call of the two distinctive groups (Jew and Gentile) is qualified by the last part of the verse- "as many as", plainly not all.

How then, should we understand 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9? If there is one unifying word in these two verses it is found in the little word "all"- "Who will have all men to be saved," and "that all should come to repentance"
We know that on some occasions "all" doesn't necessarily mean every single one in an absolute sense. Like when Mother calls "all" for dinner. Clearly this is an instance where we have a qualified use of the word "all", it may be all the family, or all within earshot, all who hear. It is clear by the testimony of many other scriptures that 1 Timothy 2:4 must be understood as “who will have all manner of men to be saved” Meaning all kinds of men. This sense is exemplified in Acts 13:48:

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

It is just not feasible that “as many as” could mean all mankind, it means all in a qualified sense: all those who God has shown mercy to. “(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Faith- the gift God gave that enables us to believe the "foolishness of preaching"

And 2 Peter 3:9 is explained when we remember this precept for interpreting scripture: “A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof text” That is, we are reading a meaning of our own choosing into the scripture when we don't pay any attention to the whole passage, it becomes an excuse for pushing our own agenda. A close examination of the context of the verse in question by identifying who Peter is speaking of will verify that the “all” coming to repentance is the Church! (The Church- past present and future- the called out body of believers whom “he hath chosen ... ...before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) This makes perfect sense, viz- that according to Peter the brethren should not be like the rest of the world scoffing and mocking the day of judgement, reminding them that mockery was nothing new but way back in Noah's time they laughed at the coming judgement, until the day of the flood. But that the day of the Lord and the associated destruction, was not yet because all future believers needed their day of visitation whereby they are granted repentance to life and then shall the end come. The husbandman of the ages waits patiently for the crop that will in due time spring up from the good seed and will not allow hasty destruction of the tares lest the wheat be destroyed also but will gather them up at the appointed time. (Mathew 13 fwd.)

How The Saints of Old Resolved It:

I recently came across a book which deals almost exclusively with the problem we are talking about, published in 1647- It is called "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen. This is written on the back cover of the book republished in an easy to read format “Life By His Death!”, (Grace Publications,1992) -"It is suggested that no-one has ever succeeded in refuting the thesis that Owen here so fully expounds and defends from the Scriptures." (Words in blue are quoted from Owen's book)

I quote from p35, "If you look carefully at any verse which uses the word 'all', and examine it in its context, you will soon be persuaded that nowhere does scripture say that Christ died for each and every man."

Here is what John Owen says about that little three letter word: "There are some general things that need to be said first, about the use of the word 'all'. It has two meanings in normal use. It can either mean 'the entire number of', or, 'those of every sort'. I am prepared to say that not more than once in ten times does it mean 'the entire number' in scripture! The most common usage is to mean 'those of every sort'. For example:

(Luke 11:42) But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. "The actual words here are 'all herbs'. But the translators have made it read 'all manner of herbs', which we believe is correct." (John Owen is here referring to the Greek word: pas {pas} Strong's {3956} Definitions: including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), ×daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), ×thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

(John 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. "Obviously, the entire human race is not drawn to Christ. 'All' , in this place, can only mean men of all sorts." (Here Owen again points to the fact “all” may mean “all manner of”. It would then be seen to mean:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all manner of men unto me.” Which speaks of the universal Church rather than universal salvation. In other words all manner of mankind irrespective of race, colour ethnic background,  culture etc. It is interesting to note that the translators have inserted the word “men” which was not in the original, so it could legitimately be understood this way-
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me” which would then be entirely consistent with “(John 6:37) “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;...” and (John 6:39) “And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Notice that only the two alternatives suggested are actually consistent with other scriptures found in the same gospel ) Clearly in the latter verse all is qualified- Christ has lost none of all that God has given him. We cannot be of two minds here, either God has determined to save all of mankind, (in which case experience teaches us this has not been fulfilled, and we need to downgrade the view of omnipotence) or God has determined a definite number to be saved, and this is fulfilled perfectly according to the true view of his majesty.

(Acts 2:17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: "It is clear from experience that the Holy Spirit is not poured out on the whole human race. 'All flesh' can only mean people of every sort- not Jews only." (Owen here is alluding to the great problem for the early Church, and that was- how to convince people, with a mindset, the Jewish people in particular, that God was in fact even remotely interested in anyone other than the Jewish people. This mindset made it essential that Jewish people could only be persuaded if they saw evidence of the broader view of God's love for all manner of mankind from the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. Hence St.Peters use of this passage from the book of Joel. It was only through their respect and esteem for the scriptures that they could possibly entertain this idea of saving people that weren't Jewish.)

(Acts 10:12) Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. "Again, the actual words (in the original language) are 'all beasts'. But the translators have correctly written 'all manner of beasts'." (It is interesting Owen points out this scripture, as it is God giving Peter the vision which was to mean the beginning of wisdom for Peter as far as salvation being for Gentiles as well as the Jews, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Subsequent events unfolded to give Peter the confidence to unequivocally include Gentiles into the Household of God.)

Sometimes, there is more to the word “all” than first appears, and sometimes less, either way that is not all there is to it!