Friday, December 19, 2008
The Two Wills of God
In light of the current discussions that have been going on in the blogosphere concerning hyper-calvinism and the two wills of God I thought I would attempt to, in a very terse fashion, explain how I understand the two wills of God, especially as it pertains to the universal saving desire of God. I remember first being introduced to the two wills of God in John Piper’s work The Pleasure’s of God. I had by that time become fully convinced of the biblical teaching of sovereign grace and was seeking to harmonize scripture without negating or ignoring those scriptures that clearly spoke of man’s responsibility and inability do what is agreeable to God’s holy character. The two wills seemed to the most simplistic and most defensible position to hold to in order to reconcile this conundrum. I was almost satisfied until I came across Turretin’s works that spoke of the compound and divided sense of God’s will. Curiosity took over and I became increasingly intrigued with Turretin’s way of speaking of the will of God. It seemed to house both the perceptive and decretive will of God without making the two wills of God the entire house itself. In other words, the two wills became a subset of the more encompassing hermeneutic of the compound and divided sense of God’s will.
So what is the compound and divided sense of God’s will? Basically the compound sense is the will of God as it pertains to who God is essentially and eternally within Himself, and the divided sense is how he has communicated Himself to us; which would include all language of accommodation, metaphors, symbolism, anthropomorphism, anthropopathism etc. So how does this relate to the universal saving desire of God? Well it gives full affirmation to this truth without putting the decretive will of God in direct contradiction to perceptive will of God. I would argue that the compound sense of God’s will can house God’s desires for the salvation of man as well as His decree to save the elect only; the salvation of all man because God within Himself always desires what is agreeable to immutable holy character, and the salvation of the elect alone since He has eternally determined within Himself to display his justice in judging the reprobate, thus bringing satisfaction to immutable holy character. The difference would then be more of purpose and intention, not so much as desire or will, because desire and will can be spoken of in reference to both His precepts and His decrees.
Therefore by understanding God's will in the compound and divide sense we can logically make room for us to think of God as sometimes desiring things He has not decreed and decreeing things that He does not desire, thus avoiding direct contradiction since both His desires and purposes are satisfied and fulfilled in either the cross or the sinner.
Corrections welcomed, just be kind about it :-)
Very well Jonathon, but as you have stated in the other comments thread about being clear and not misunderstood, let us bring all of this down to the level that Tony Byrne brings it.
ReplyDeleteWill you tell sinners that God loves them and Christ died for them as part of your Apologetics?
That is how the whole argument started at Gene's board between me and Byrne and Ponter.
I said I would not present the gospel in that way, and was immediately called a Hyper-Calvinist from then on by these guys.
If you would not tell sinners that God loves you and Christ has died for you as part of your apologetic in preaching the gospel, then you too would be a Hyper Calvinist according to them.
We can talk about compound and divided sense as you do, or we can make distinctions regarding the intent and purpose of God as I do, but it will not make any difference with Byrne and Ponter.
You and Gene had Byrne on and he misrepresented my views yet again, and I did not hear Gene correct him, as he knows my views.
That is why I mentioned James White, as he too had been maligned by Byrne.
When Byrne says that we do not allow (in any sense) that God by will of precept has a desire to see his commands obeyed, this guy will not allow our sense to have merit, so he just lies and says we are Hyper. It is dishonest of him and divisive to say the least.
You guys should be rebuking the man, not giving him a platform and elevating his stature as someone who is informed on the issues.
Even calling him (atony-ment) is giving him stature he does not deserve, for when it comes to the matter of the atonement he holds to a universal expiation doctrine, and mucking about with the atonement is akin to mucking about with essential doctrine.
Mark
The following work is well worth reading upon this subject...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/TwoWills.htm
Hi Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteI’m an agnostic who’s a huge fan of your appearances on Narrow Mind radio.
You’re normally very clear and very persuasive. But, as out of character as it seems, I find your explanation on this subject just a bit unsatisfying.
Let me start by assuming you agree that the idea of saving all men, and the idea of condemning most men, are contradictory. Logic would dictate that God can do one or the other, but not both.
Now, let’s look at what I think is the meat of your explanation. (I’ve edited it slightly, so please correct me if I’ve misunderstood your meaning.)
Jonathan: “God desires the salvation of all men because God within Himself always desires what is agreeable to immutable holy character. God decrees the salvation of the elect alone since He has determined within Himself to display his justice in judging the reprobate, thus bringing satisfaction to immutable holy character. Therefore God sometimes desires things He has not decreed, and decrees things He does not desire. This avoids direct contradiction, since both His desires and purposes are satisfied and fulfilled in either the cross or the sinner.”
I think this amounts to saying that what God wills preceptively and what He wills decretively are always in harmony, never contradictory, because both comport with His nature. The problem is, first, that it doesn’t explain HOW two contradictory ideas can both comport with God’s character, especially if His character is logical. The second problem is that it doesn’t explain how claiming that two contradictory ideas both comport with a single nature can justify denying that the two contradictory ideas are in fact contradictory.
Thanks very much.
Keith, when you say you are agnostic, what are you meaning?
ReplyDeleteMark
I don't know whether a God exists or not.
ReplyDeleteI am always fascinated when a Non Christian asks questions about the finer points of Theology.
ReplyDeleteCall me curious or even cautious, but the last time I sincerely addressed questions from an enquirer, my gut instinct was that the enquirer was in fact a Christian trying to set a trap (which turned out to be the case btw), not that I am saying that about you, but your observation is one not usually addressed by agnostics...
Hopefully Jonathan shall answer it.
Mark
Also, the fact you use the term "preceptively" which is correct, and even Jonathan got that term wrong (he wrote perceptively, which is another word entirely, or a simple spelling error!), makes me more sure that if you are not an agnostic, you certainly have an acquaintance of the issues better than most Christians..
ReplyDeleteMark
Mark: “your observation is one not usually addressed by agnostics...”
ReplyDeleteThat’s because most agnostics remain blissfully unaware that anyone thinks God has two wills. I happen to be an agnostic who believes every educated American should be familiar with the Bible and with Christian theology, just because they’re so important in our culture. I wish I could say that I myself have such a familiarity, but I don’t. The truth is, everything I know about Calvinist theology I learned from Gene and Jonathan. And I feel very remiss that I’ve still read only a tiny portion of the Bible.
One problem is that I don’t seem to have time to read books these days.
But even though I don’t read about it, I have to admit that I find Calvinist theology utterly fascinating. Unfortunately, I find a lot of other things fascinating as well, which further limits my time.
To avoid any suspicion of a trap, let me admit at the outset that I don’t see how Calvinists can satisfactorily answer the questions I asked. But Jonathan is so good at this that I definitely leave open the possibility of his surprising me.
Thank you for the compliments, Mark.
Keith
You are welcome Keith. You are certainly sharp, I will give you that.
ReplyDeleteJonathan can ably answer for himself, but I shall offer the following.
The two wills idea has a place in theology as a helpful construct, or a tool to aid our understanding, but sadly for many, the tool becomes the rule, and can be misapplied.
In the strictest sense, God has one sovereign will, but there is a sense in which we must at times look at His will from a twofold aspect.
My position is simple.
God desires to show mercy to whom He will show mercy. That is scripture, and it speaks directly to the issue regarding whom God desires to save.
That means God desires to save some and not all. This is based upon His own free will to show mercy to whom He shall show mercy.
The idea that God is willing to show mercy to all is not biblical, but we can say that God with reference to all men, commands all men to repent and believe, but He has chosen to enable some men and not all men to repent and believe.
Some Christians try to make God commanding all men to repent and believe mean that God is therefore desiring all men to be saved, which would be a flat out contradiction.
This issue I have found out can cause a lot of heat amongst Christians sadly, but the modern two wills teaching comes more from a modern movement from Holland than anything found way back when the reformation and the creeds of Protestantism were formulated.
I can tell men that not only is God free to save whomever He desires to save, but He is also not causing men to "not" believe, as in actively causing their so called free will to reject Him.
All men are born rejecting Him, and in that sense it is a level playing field, but not all men are shown saving grace, but those who were appointed to it.
He then works upon these persons to renew their nature in something we call regeneration, also known as the "new birth" or being born again.
Every person for whom God desires to save, shall be called by The Holy Spirit, and in time shall be regenerated, justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, converted as a conscious act of a renewed will, by an act of faith, resulting from the free grace and gift of God.
Everyone else is passed over and shall remain in their rebellion against God, and justly condemned to punishment for their own sins.
Just keep in mind that God is under no obligation whatsoever to save anyone at all, and that is why salvation is a sheer act of free grace to some and not all.
We need to hold up a Holy and pure God, which scripture presents regarding the God of the bible. Once we step down from this high view of God, we shall loose just about everything necessary for salvation itself to even make sense.
Also,as an imperfect illustration, even a King or leader may have the power to freely pardon a criminal, and yet, choose not to do so in order to show Justice.
Christianity is all about Justice and mercy, with both being tied to Jesus Christ and Him alone and His death upon the cross and subsequent resurrection all for His people, whom He came to save.
In the end, sin so demeans a person, that they have not a clue regarding the state in which they are in before a holy God.
I as a Christian, must plead with you and all men where I have opportunity to do so, that you must repent of your sins and turn in faith resting upon Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God.
God is not holding you or anyone else back by "withholding what you do not deserve", namely grace..for it is the person first who will not come to Christ, and I share that with you so that even you may cry out to your Creator for mercy, whilst there is still time to do so.
Never in the history of the world has God turned a deaf ear to genuine seekers. Never has He turned away genuine bonafide sinners, real sinners who own their sin and simply cast themselves upon His mercy in Christ.
Hope that helps a little my friend.
Mark
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark, I don’t see that you’re making the same distinction Jonathan makes between decreeing and desiring. Do you agree with him that God can sometimes decree what he doesn’t desire?
ReplyDeleteYour post suggests to me that God would not decree that most men be condemned while desiring that all men be saved. If I'm right about your position, then I find it logical and consistent.
Keith
The problem Keith is with that word "desire". It is not the right word to use regarding God and His intentions.
ReplyDeleteI find in the confessions a statement about God, and it reads,
""There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions (emphasis mine), immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,"
The Westminster Confession Ch 2 Of God, and of the Holy Trinity/ London Baptist Confession 1689.
The statement say's "without passions" and for good reason. The statement does not imply that God is some kind of unfeeling being, but rather He has total control of His emotions like no other created being, where the use of such terms as passions or desires is inappropriate for our Creator.
If Jonathan was pushed he would affirm that God decrees whatever He intends to do and he may even agree that the use of the term "desires" can be problematic.
The issue of whether God desires what He has not decreed is sloppy, for it presents the idea that God would have unfulfilled desires, and I am confident that Jonathan does not believe that!
It also gets back to this idea presented by modern Calvinists that in a sense, desire is synonymous with command, and I of course refute that idea.
I believe that what God commands may not mean that what He commands, He intends to come to pass, but what He commands, seriously represents what we as humans should do, namely obedience, therefore we can say that in a sense, God seriously and genuinely wants for us to obey His commands, but God being God, does not make the issue of our obedience one of His desires, in the normal sense of that word, and that is why scripture never uses that word with respect to God.
Earlier I mentioned the two wills construct and its usefulness as a tool, but this issue, that is, the question as to whom God wants to save, is answered exegetically from scripture, otherwise the tool becomes the rule and is unhelpful.
Also consider Phil Johnson's recent clarification regarding how some misguided Calvinists have used his Primer on Hyper Calvinism to attack those like me, when he recently stated,
"The webpage Dr. Allen cited from me says nothing whatsoever about what God "desires." What I have consistently said elsewhere [check out footnote 20 in that link] is this: Optative expressions like desire and wish are always problematic when it comes to describing God's demeanor toward the reprobate. God does all His pleasure, and to suggest that He helplessly wrings His hands over unfulfilled "desires" is quite inaccurate—indeed, it is one of the central fallacies of the Arminian concept of God. So I try to avoid such terminology most of the time."
And this,
"At the same time, I recognize and affirm the equally-valid point being made by those who steadfastly reject the language of "desire" or "will" when we are dealing with God's overtures of mercy to the reprobate. We should not load those expressions with Arminian freight."
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white.html
You may also find my stance on this matter in the following posts,
http://tartansplace.blogspot.com/search/label/Thrown%20in%20for%20free.
Mark
Mark said: “The idea that God desires what He has not decreed...implies that God would have unfulfilled desires, and I am confident that Jonathan does not believe that! ... We CAN say that, in a sense, God seriously and genuinely wants for us to obey His commands...”
ReplyDeleteKeith says: So, although God can have no unfulfilled desires, He does have unfulfilled wants? What would be the difference?
-Keith
No, you see how sticky those kinds of words are?
ReplyDeleteWords like "wants and desires" have connotations in the modern vernacular, but even the word want can be construed as command in the sense that God wants us to comply, and such would have a warning connected with that kind of want, whereas, in another context, want could be close to desire...
The best answer although a little awkward would be that God has unfulfilled commands, being that men break His commands all the time, but God does not have unfulfilled wants or desires..
Do you acknowledge the difference?
Mark
I don’t understand what you mean by “that kind of want” in the context that God, “would have a warning connected with that kind of want.” What kind of want?
ReplyDeleteBut if you just say, “God has unfulfilled commands, being that men break His commands all the time, but God does not have unfulfilled wants or desires,” I have no problem. But that avoids any need for two wills. Instead, God just issues commands and wants some to obey and others to disobey.
But the minute you say he “wills” or “wants” everyone to obey, then it looks to me as though that will or want is going unfulfilled.
The command to repent is a "want", that has a threat associated with it.
ReplyDeleteGod commanding something does not necessarily imply an unfulfilled desire, as He may have a higher intention to show judgment rather than grant mercy.
God is free to choose whom He shall save, so we come back to God showing mercy to whomever He decides to show mercy.
That means that God, does not choose to show saving mercy to all.
And as I said, a command to obey does not necessitate an unfulfilled desire or want. An unfulfilled command on the part of man? Yes, but even that obedience not being done, makes room for another intention to be fulfilled in God's plans and purposes, but certainly not an unfulfilled desire in God.
"But that avoids any need for two wills. Instead, God just issues commands and wants some to obey and others to disobey."
No, the command to obey is binding upon all men, even though all men have no ability in and of themselves to comply. Command does not imply ability.
When you say God wants others to disobey, this is where the two wills construct serves some purpose, for what God commands by preceptive will, which has to do with what man ought to do, and relates to law and commandments, God can by will of decree (decretive will) that some men shall be granted the ability to repent by a positive, active work of God, and others are left passively (ie no direct action is need from God, as all men by nature lack the ability to repent and believe) and are thus passively left in their sins, known as reprobation.
So, it is not proper to simply say that God wants some to obey and others not to obey, without giving proper attention to will of precept and will of decree.
There are necessary distinctions to be weighed when discussing these two aspects of God's will.
The two will construct helps with that distinction, the problem is when one aspect of that distinction, is made to say more than the distinction calls for, like for example, making the preceptive will override the decretive will, which some do, but it also must be noted that the decretive will can and does override the preceptive will, for the decretive will accounts for everything that happens in the universe, including the actions of all men...
Some Christians run with the preceptive will and end up in contradiction, for they have misused the proper theological category of law and grace/gospel and that is another big subject!
But you are right when you said,
"But if you just say, “God has unfulfilled commands, being that men break His commands all the time, but God does not have unfulfilled wants or desires,” I have no problem.
Mark
Keith says: Mark, this is becoming awkward in the blog comment format, and we’re going on too long without interacting with any of the bloggers here. At the same time of my first post here, I emailed you my address, and formatting replies would be easier that way.
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to post here, I’ll answer you here. But I think that, out of courtesy to others, we should transition to email.
Mark said: “The command to repent is a "want", that has a threat associated with it.”
Keith writes: I would just say, “the command to repent has a threat associated with it.” Why to you add the word “want,” and how are you defining it if you don’t mean it in the usual sense?
Mark said: “God commanding something does not necessarily imply an unfulfilled ...[long omission]...plans and purposes, but certainly not an unfulfilled desire in God.”
Keith says: The paragraphs of your text that I compacted immediately above are all consistent with the one-will theory, and I don’t disagree with anything in them.
Keith earlier said, "But that avoids any need for two wills. Instead, God just issues commands and wants some to obey and others to disobey."
Mark said: “No, the command to obey is binding upon all men, even though all men have no ability in and of themselves to comply. Command does not imply ability.”
Keith says: Why do you begin the sentence with, “no”? Your statement is perfectly compatible with what I had said.
Mark said: “When you say God wants others to disobey...[long omission]...are thus passively left in their sins, known as reprobation.”
Keith says: All your text that I compacted immediately above is compatible with the one-will theory and I don’t disagree with any of it.
Mark said: “So, it is not proper to simply say that God wants some to obey and others not to obey, without giving proper attention to will of precept and will of decree. There are necessary distinctions to be weighed when discussing these two aspects of God's will.”
Keith says: Please specify what they are. I've read very carefully everything you’ve presented here, and I don't see anything that's incompatible with the one-will theory.
Mark said: “The two-will construct helps with that distinction. The problem ...[long omission]...including the actions of all men.”
Keith says: The problem is that as soon as you introduce the preceptive will, you’ve attributed to God a will that's going unfulfilled. I actually don’t understand what’s wrong with the idea of God having unfulfilled wills, wants, or desires. But for some reason you seem to consider it unacceptable.
In any case, none of the distinctions you mentioned so far are incompatible with a single will.
I just want to say that I think the public interaction on this subject is edifying. You guys can do your exchanges privately on this matter if you desire, but just know that others are reading, and the discussion's not a waste of time.
ReplyDelete“Keith says: Mark, this is becoming awkward in the blog comment format, and we’re going on too long without interacting with any of the bloggers here. At the same time of my first post here, I emailed you my address, and formatting replies would be easier that way.
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to post here, I’ll answer you here. But I think that, out of courtesy to others, we should transition to email.”
---------------------------------
Thanks, as Adam has provided an encouragement for us, I think it is good to stay here, unless you want to go private, and of course, others can join in!
---------------------------------
“Mark said: “The command to repent is a "want", that has a threat associated with it.”
Keith writes: I would just say, “the command to repent has a threat associated with it.” Why to you add the word “want,” and how are you defining it if you don’t mean it in the usual sense?”
---------------------------------
Exactly, but many others like to make command synonymous with want/desire etc, and I am trying to show how these other words contain assumptions not necessarily found in the text.
---------------------------------
“Mark said: “God commanding something does not necessarily imply an unfulfilled ...[long omission]...plans and purposes, but certainly not an unfulfilled desire in God.”
Keith says: The paragraphs of your text that I compacted immediately above are all consistent with the one-will theory, and I don’t disagree with anything in them.”
---------------------------------
Great.
---------------------------------
“Keith earlier said, "But that avoids any need for two wills. Instead, God just issues commands and wants some to obey and others to disobey."
Mark said: “No, the command to obey is binding upon all men, even though all men have no ability in and of themselves to comply. Command does not imply ability.”
Keith says: Why do you begin the sentence with, “no”? Your statement is perfectly compatible with what I had said.”
---------------------------------
I said no because the last part of your statement about God wanting others to disobey needed important clarification, which I provided.
---------------------------------
“Mark said: “When you say God wants others to disobey...[long omission]...are thus passively left in their sins, known as reprobation.”
Keith says: All your text that I compacted immediately above is compatible with the one-will theory and I don’t disagree with any of it.”
---------------------------------
Again great.
---------------------------------
“Mark said: “So, it is not proper to simply say that God wants some to obey and others not to obey, without giving proper attention to will of precept and will of decree. There are necessary distinctions to be weighed when discussing these two aspects of God's will.”
Keith says: Please specify what they are. I've read very carefully everything you’ve presented here, and I don't see anything that's incompatible with the one-will theory.”
---------------------------------
Just as long as you understand the one will has distinctions that must be maintained where necessary as I have explained.
---------------------------------
“Mark said: “The two-will construct helps with that distinction. The problem ...[long omission]...including the actions of all men.”
Keith says: The problem is that as soon as you introduce the preceptive will, you’ve attributed to God a will that's going unfulfilled. I actually don’t understand what’s wrong with the idea of God having unfulfilled wills, wants, or desires. But for some reason you seem to consider it unacceptable.
In any case, none of the distinctions you mentioned so far are incompatible with a single will.”
---------------------------------
The preceptive will must be introduced as it has to do with what man ought to do. It deals with God's commands and has to do with obligation and obedience, rooted in God's law.
The whole matter of what God desires is an important one, and the whole matter concerning “unfulfilled desires” relating to God, is an affront upon His Holiness and Sovereignty, and that is the reason I fight this particular battle of words with others.
It is sloppy exegesis and poor Systematic Theology to present people with a god who has unfulfilled desires.
Let me ask you something. Could you worship a god who is not much better than fickle men and their shifting emotions at worst, or a weak and beggarly deity at best?
God, the Triune God of scripture shall not be spending eternity with His people, hung up with unfulfilled desires and wants etc. No sir! It is important, for we are talking about God, your creator.
Thanks for the discussion, we might have exhausted it, but maybe not, as so many other issues are connected with this subject, especially evangelism and apologetics, as it is very important how we present the Lord God to the world enslaved in it's own sin and in need of redemption.
Mark
Thank you, Adam for your feedback. And thank you Mark for your willingness to disagree respectfully with an unbeliever.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent, Mark, that you’re denying that God wants all men to be saved, then I think your position is logical. But here are the reasons I’m not yet satisfied with what you’ve written.
You at one point said that God might not intend us to do what he commands us to do. His commands are actually just warnings explaining what we need to do in order to escape punishment. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have one with your conclusion: “Therefore we can say that God seriously and genuinely wants us to obey his commands.”
If you’re including the non-elect, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
It looks to me as though God not only does NOT want the non-elect to obey, but He goes further and actually SEES TO IT that they won’t obey.
I don’t want to argue here that this makes God responsible for our actions, even though that is what I think. You and I have too much on our plates as it is. So I’ll stipulate, for the purposes of this discussion, that we humans, and not God, are completely responsible for our sins.
But I am claiming that, from the standpoint of Calvinism, God does see to it that the non-elect disobey His commands. He arranged, when He created the world, that the non-elect would be unable to believe, unable to respond to His grace, and unable to resist sin.
That’s why I think it would be hard for a Calvinist to say, “God seriously and genuinely wants all to obey,” without recourse to a second will of God. I don’t think it’s enough to say the second will is a “useful construct” with the understanding that, “strictly speaking,” God has only one will. If God seriously and genuinely wants all to be saved, while making sure that most will not be saved, there has to be an actual, very real and distinct, second will of God.
Think about it. From the standpoint of His decretive will, God obviously does not “seriously and genuinely want all to obey.” So if any will of God does want, or intend, all to obey, it would have to be a separate will.
But even that only pushes back one step the question I put to Jonathan: How can God’s nature be logical and consistent and still include contradictory wants, or wills.
-----------
Mark also said: “When you say God wants others to disobey, this is where the two wills construct serves some purpose, for what God commands by preceptive will, which has to do with what man ought to do, and relates to law and commandments, God can by will of decree (decretive will) that some men shall be granted the ability to repent by a positive, active work of God, and others are left passively (i.e. no direct action is need from God, as all men by nature lack the ability to repent and believe) and are thus passively left in their sins, known as reprobation.”
Mark then said: “So, it is not proper to simply say that God wants some to obey and others not to obey, without giving proper attention to will of precept and will of decree.”
Keith says: All right, I’ll accept for the sake of this discussion that my statement wasn’t “proper” as I presented it. But please directly answer this: Accepting as context all your qualifications about precept and decree, is this a true statement or a false statement: “God wants some, but not all, to obey His commandments”?
And, while you’re at it, how about this statement (again, with all your qualifications accepted): “God wills all people to be saved.” Is that a true statement in it’s proper context, or a false one?
-------------
Mark asked: “Could you worship a god who is not much better than fickle men and their shifting emotions at worst, or a weak and beggarly deity at best? God, the Triune God of scripture shall not be spending eternity with His people, hung up with unfulfilled desires and wants etc. No sir! It is important, for we are talking about God, your creator.”
Keith answers: Are you saying you wouldn't worship a God like that, with unfulfilled wants?
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mark, but you worship a God who commanded Saul to butcher the entire Amalekite nation, insisting that they kill not only the men, but the women, children -- even the suckling infants, down to the last one. I doubt there’s any atrocity, however gruesome, that, if commanded by God, would make you stop worshiping Him.
And, even worse than the Amalekite slaughter, God created the entire human race so that none of us would be able to keep His law. As a result, we all, because of the way He designed us, deserve to be tormented horribly, forever. And He arranged it so that most of us actually do wind up eternally burning in hell. Why? Just because He feels it gives Him more "glory."
But you’re fine with all that. In fact, you love nothing more than worshipping such a God. But now you’re saying that the idea of a God that, in some way too hard for our limited minds to understand, has two real and distinct wills, with one wanting all men to be saved but remaining unfulfilled due to His other will -- that’s where you’d draw the line. Even if the Bible revealed unambiguously that God had unfulfilled wants, you’d apparently rather burn in hell forever than worship the Creator of the Universe, if such a will were part of Him.
All right. If that’s your position then I guess that’s your position. But I can’t help wondering who you are to judge God. Do you really think pots should go around judging their potters? What gives you the right to decide what qualities God should or shouldn’t have to be worthy of worship?
Keith
Thank you, Adam for your feedback. And thank you Mark for your willingness to disagree respectfully with an unbeliever.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Me now,
You are welcome Keith.
----------------------------------
To the extent, Mark, that you’re denying that God wants all men to be saved, then I think your position is logical. But here are the reasons I’m not yet satisfied with what you’ve written.
You at one point said that God might not intend us to do what he commands us to do. His commands are actually just warnings explaining what we need to do in order to escape punishment. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have one with your conclusion: “Therefore we can say that God seriously and genuinely wants us to obey his commands.”
If you’re including the non-elect, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
It looks to me as though God not only does NOT want the non-elect to obey, but He goes further and actually SEES TO IT that they won’t obey.
----------------------------------
Me now,
No, only if you do not make certain distinctions, and men are already in and of themselves not willing to obey, so the idea that God “sees to it” is an invalid point. You may argue that God “sees to it” in the sense of His creative decree, but even then, there are necessary distinctions relevant to Pre/Post Adam which need to be taken on board.
----------------------------------
I don’t want to argue here that this makes God responsible for our actions, even though that is what I think. You and I have too much on our plates as it is. So I’ll stipulate, for the purposes of this discussion, that we humans, and not God, are completely responsible for our sins.
----------------------------------
Me now,
We are certainly responsible for our sins, but God is responsible for our actions, relating to His decretive will. That responsibility however, is holy and pure and never evil, but as evil is also part of God's decree, He controls it for His own wise purposes, which ultimately is good.
----------------------------------
But I am claiming that, from the standpoint of Calvinism, God does see to it that the non-elect disobey His commands. He arranged, when He created the world, that the non-elect would be unable to believe, unable to respond to His grace, and unable to resist sin.
----------------------------------
Me now,
That is only part of the truth Keith and as so it becomes an untruth. We must also discuss the compatibility of man's will with regards to God's will. We must discuss secondary means and causation. We needs discuss the state of man after the fall in the garden and indeed the study of man's nature and God's nature.
----------------------------------
That’s why I think it would be hard for a Calvinist to say, “God seriously and genuinely wants all to obey,” without recourse to a second will of God. I don’t think it’s enough to say the second will is a “useful construct” with the understanding that, “strictly speaking,” God has only one will. If God seriously and genuinely wants all to be saved, while making sure that most will not be saved, there has to be an actual, very real and distinct, second will of God.
Think about it. From the standpoint of His decretive will, God obviously does not “seriously and genuinely want all to obey.” So if any will of God does want, or intend, all to obey, it would have to be a separate will.
----------------------------------
Me now,
The distinction of two wills is helpful, just as long as it does not get in the way of exegesis of scripture, where scripture is plain to understand. It is true to say that what God commands He expects to be obeyed, and that is why we have this Preceptive will to aid our understanding.
I will go further and simply tell you that if a man obeys God's command to repent and believe, he shall be saved. That is a true statement, and therefore does not disqualify God as being insincere. The fact that no man shall in and of himself obey that command, due to their inability to do so, likewise does not equate to any insincerity in God either.
----------------------------------
But even that only pushes back one step the question I put to Jonathan: How can God’s nature be logical and consistent and still include contradictory wants, or wills.
-----------
----------------------------------
Me now,
I am not sure if Jonathan embraces contradiction, I would say no, as he is quite sharp! But, I agree with Jonathan when he talks about the language of accommodation that is often utilized in scripture, for the purpose of allowing God to communicate to man. I believe Anthropomorphic language found in scripture is a way of helping us understand His will and particularly His preceptive will of command.
Even we can use different senses with regards to the human will. We can be willing for situation (a) to happen, but our desire for situation (b) may be the stronger inclination, that neither presents contradiction nor insincerity, as the strongest inclination rules the day. The same can be said of God in a similar sense.
He may not have desires or pleasure to see men perish, but He is free to allow men to perish for He has a plan and purpose to do so, and it is not merely to bring Him glory, as indeed it is, but unless you see and understand your own heart and will, you can never be high enough to pronounce judgments against your Creator and His ways.
----------------------------------
Mark also said: “When you say God wants others to disobey, this is where the two wills construct serves some purpose, for what God commands by preceptive will, which has to do with what man ought to do, and relates to law and commandments, God can by will of decree (decretive will) that some men shall be granted the ability to repent by a positive, active work of God, and others are left passively (i.e. no direct action is need from God, as all men by nature lack the ability to repent and believe) and are thus passively left in their sins, known as reprobation.”
Mark then said: “So, it is not proper to simply say that God wants some to obey and others not to obey, without giving proper attention to will of precept and will of decree.”
Keith says: All right, I’ll accept for the sake of this discussion that my statement wasn’t “proper” as I presented it. But please directly answer this: Accepting as context all your qualifications about precept and decree, is this a true statement or a false statement: “God wants some, but not all, to obey His commandments”?
----------------------------------
Me now,
No, He wants “all” to obey by will of precept, even though all do not have the ability to meet the command to obey, for command does not imply human ability, and given this as being true, He also chooses to enable some and not all to meet the requirement to repent and believe the gospel.
----------------------------------
And, while you’re at it, how about this statement (again, with all your qualifications accepted): “God wills all people to be saved.” Is that a true statement in it’s proper context, or a false one?
----------------------------------
Me now,
That is a problematic statement open to abuse and confusion that requires the very distinctions I have been arguing.
By will of precept, God commands all men everywhere to repent, so in that sense, IE moral obligation to obedience, God therefore expects man to repent and believe. However, the language of “desire” is not appropriate in this context and hence I do not say that God desires for all to be saved, as this introduces the potential for God to have unfulfilled desires, which is not biblical.
It gets back to what I have said earlier, namely that command and desire are not synonyms...
----------------------------------
Mark asked: “Could you worship a god who is not much better than fickle men and their shifting emotions at worst, or a weak and beggarly deity at best? God, the Triune God of scripture shall not be spending eternity with His people, hung up with unfulfilled desires and wants etc. No sir! It is important, for we are talking about God, your creator.”
Keith answers: Are you saying you wouldn't worship a God like that, with unfulfilled wants?
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mark, but you worship a God who commanded Saul to butcher the entire Amalekite nation, insisting that they kill not only the men, but the women, children -- even the suckling infants, down to the last one. I doubt there’s any atrocity, however gruesome, that, if commanded by God, would make you stop worshiping Him.
----------------------------------
Me now,
Hang on a second, we are now mixing things a little. First of all, no, I could not worship a god with all of these unfulfilled desires and wants, such a being is not worthy of worship, however, a God who has perfect fellowship in and of Himself, in Triune being, a God who is altogether lovely and pure, holy, sovereign and without fault, and who brings to pass all of His judgments and mercies, is a God worth bowing down before in adoration and awe.
Now regarding your historical reference to the Amalekite nation, that was one of those judgements of a Holy God against an unholy people, who were as evil as people could ever get. It is indeed you who is judging God at this point, not me my friend.
----------------------------------
And, even worse than the Amalekite slaughter, God created the entire human race so that none of us would be able to keep His law.
----------------------------------
Me now,
Again, hang on a moment. God created the human race in order to call out a people for Himself, not merely to create people with no ability to keep His law.
The fact men have no ability to keep His law perfectly, is found in the fact that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam, not because god made us that way.
You may not like the fact that we inherit original sin from Adam, but that is not a valid argument against the simple fact that you and I and everyone else is born in sin, practices sin and freely choose to sin every single day.
The language of slaughter is more clearly seen upon the cross, when man attempted to slaughter The Lord of glory, and of course this was sanctioned and decreed by God Himself.
“for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
(Acts 4:27-28)
"Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth."
(Acts 8:32)
----------------------------------
As a result, we all, because of the way He designed us, deserve to be tormented horribly, forever. And He arranged it so that most of us actually do wind up eternally burning in hell. Why? Just because He feels it gives Him more "glory."
----------------------------------
Me now,
Again, it is not me judging God. If what you say above actually represented this thing we call “truth” then I would agree with you, but what you present above is just so loaded, and absent from what is the case, makes the statement not really worth a response.
----------------------------------
But you’re fine with all that. In fact, you love nothing more than worshipping such a God.
----------------------------------
Me now,
I'm sorry, but I am not fine with “all that” as you put it.
----------------------------------
But now you’re saying that the idea of a God that, in some way too hard for our limited minds to understand, has two real and distinct wills, with one wanting all men to be saved but remaining unfulfilled due to His other will -- that’s where you’d draw the line.
----------------------------------
Me now,
I am not sure you have been carefully reading me at all. I do not say that God has two real and distinct wills. He has one will, which can be understood in two senses, will of precept and will of decree.
I never even mentioned this in the context of being hard to understand or us as having limited minds etc, so I have no idea where all of that came from, certainly not this discussion.
----------------------------------
Even if the Bible revealed unambiguously that God had unfulfilled wants, you’d apparently rather burn in hell forever than worship the Creator of the Universe, if such a will were part of Him.
----------------------------------
Me now,
It is unfortunate our discussion has ended up here with these kinds of assertions. The Bible presents us with a God who most certainly gets all of His desires, please consider the following scripture,
"Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
(Isaiah 46:9-10)
----------------------------------
All right. If that’s your position then I guess that’s your position. But I can’t help wondering who you are to judge God. Do you really think pots should go around judging their potters? What gives you the right to decide what qualities God should or shouldn’t have to be worthy of worship?
----------------------------------
Me now,
Again, it is sad the discussion came to this. I have made no judgments against God, but I have certainly made statements that may interfere with your ideas about god, but everything I have said is based upon God's own revelation of Himself from scripture, not my imagination.
What right do you have to judge God for His judgments against the Amalakites?
Mark
Keith, I just heard a 15 minute video clip from Dr James White, and you may wish to listen to it, as some of what we have discussed or at least some implications from what I have said are spoken about.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3067
Mark
Thanks for the clip, Mark. It was interesting.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to have to postpone my reply to you, for maybe a week. There are pressing matters I need to attend to. I’ll comment on the White clip at that time. That will probably be my final posting. I intend to give the last word to you.
I respect the way you’re handling yourself in our discussion, by the way.
Best,
Keith
Thank you Keith. I am glad you watched the White video.
ReplyDeleteTake your time my friend.
Mark
Or in other words, God wants things He can't have, and has things He doesn't want.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm not of the impression that God is a two-year-old.