Two wills of God? What is this?

[Guest]

Calvinism is a living illustration of the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome. It is craziness. It is the Schizophrenia of Theological doctrines. I have read Calvinistic literature for over 20 years, and the more I read it, the more the word CRAZY comes to mind. It is not rational at all. You have to be as double-minded and unstable in all your ways as the "god" Calvinists say is the God of the Bible.

But worse, the Calvinists have become increasingly more hostile and less charitable in recent years, coupled with their resurgence and success on many fronts. Arminians are either outright heretics, or Pelagians, or Semi-Pelagians, and we do not follow the true Gospel, etc. Meanwhile back at the ranch, these crazies turn the Loving Merciful God into a Sadistic Devil beyond human imagination, they BLATANTLY and absolutely contradict themselves in the truest sense of contradiction, and then they speak of Arminians like they do. To me, these people are CRAZY.

[Guest]

[/quote]

Super Sola Scriptura,

I find it a bit amusing that you call out calvinist for being more hostile and less charitable, how they are attacking arminians. And yet your whole letter is full of "demonizing" calvinist. I believe that the kettle resents being called black and wants the pot to take that back.

Anywho here is to christian diolouge with one another- they will know we are christians by our love- sorry if some calvinist overstep good debate and run to ridicule but arminians do the same thing, I believe James contrasts the wisdom from above with earthly wisdom. We would all do well to keep in mind Jms3:13-18

Grace and peace

[Guest]

Pilgrim:

I totally disagree. Notice this interesting Scripture:

1Tim.
1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the
prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest
war a good warfare;
1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away
concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered
unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

This is interesting. Paul excommunicated these two, and spiritually delivered them over to the Devil so they would learn not to blaspheme. If Augustine, John Calvin, or any die-hard Calvinist like Sproul, MacArthur and company showed up in Paul's churches teaching their blasphemy, for that IS what it is, Paul would have done the same to them.

I am not being hypocritical. We are dealing with heresy and worse, blasphemy against the Lord Himself. Calvinism is an affront upon the Living God. Wesley called Calvinism a Hellish blasphemy, and I agree. The persecution, harassment, LYING discord and divisions sown by the Calvinists of his day are painful to read. Truly it is like the allegory Paul drew in Gal 4 where the children of the flesh persecute the children of the Spirit, like Ishmael's descendants harassed Isaac's.

Calvinists have no case other than to dishonestly caricaturize Arminianism and call it things it is not. Rome has always done this to the pre-Protestant groups--the TRUE CHURCH that always existed down through the centuries that were known as Paulicians, Bohemians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Novatians and many more. Rome ascribes heretical beliefs to them they did not hold, and called them Arians, among other things. ALL LIES. Calvinists have done, and continue to do the same thing.

I have a tape series by Vision Forum, where a panel of Calvinist Scholars gave a history of Puritanism and American history. When Questions about John Calvin were asked regarding his persecuting and having people murdered who did not agree with him theologically, the Calvinist Scholar FLAT OUT DENIED IT! Liar!

You have to understand WHAT you are dealing with when you deal with this doctrine and its apologists. Calvin and Calvinists have a NOTORIOUS history that has blackened the witness of God and the Reformation itself. Calvinism has bloodshed upon its hands, and they even murdered and persecuted other real believers--Baptists and Anabaptists. They are just like the control-freak "god" they believe in. Calvinism is blasphemy and it has HORRIBLE FRUIT on every level of life, including opposition to revival and a false security in sin for professing believers. Its fruit is ROTTEN in every way.

You may ask, "What about the good Calvinists and the FEW that God used in revival?" They were good, not because they were Calvinists, but because THEY WERE CHRISTIANS. Because of Jesus Christ. He got a deep hold of some of them, and they COULD NOT go along with the majority in their ungodly antics. As Finney observed, their hearts are better than their heads.

Since what I posted is true, they must be viewed and dealt with accordingly. Over the years I have found they are IMPOSSIBLE to work with. They are factious, and eventually want to lure people to their churches and blasphemous doctrines. They teach OSAS, which is a damnable heresy if there ever was one. I have tried to work with them on pro-life issues, and most of them are simply trouble makers. It is sad. So I obey 1Tim 1:20 and Galatians 4. Enough of these blasphemous liars and sowers of discord. In 24 years of observation, and 24 years of the study of doctrine and history, I can take no other posture. These are not merely "academic" issues, but affect every sphere of life.

[Guest]

Super Sola-aka rage against the calvinist-,

please tell me what you really feel about calvinist.

As someone who leans heavily towards a reformed perspective I would feel that if the tables were turned a few hundred of years ago then you and your like minded bretheren would want to execute me for heresy.

Augustine was caught up in sensuality, Luther was anti-semetic, and Calvin, as you pointed out, approved of the death of others believers. And yet God did use these men greatly for edificaton of the Church.

Now you say that Calvinism produces rotten and horrible fruit, but if I give an example of good fruit it appears that you will say that it must just be an exception.

Do you really wish to dialouge or just vent?

Grace and peace

ps What is OSAS? please forgive my ignorance.

[Guest]

Tartanarmy's views regarding all of this.

First of all, let me state this at the outset, and in doing so, be quite clear about the matter concerning "two wills" in God.

It is right and legitimate to understand God willing in different ways. It is valid to understand God having certain ways of making known His will in scripture. As Piper rightly points out in his article, many reformed Theologians have made note of God willing in a "Preceptive" sense, and also in a "Decretive" sense. Precept and Decree. I believe Piper should have emphasised together with reformed Theologians, the primacy of God in having "One will", but also having different ways of understanding this "One will".

I mention this because in the past, reformed writers were very careful to uphold that God essentially has "one" will, and therefore He is not a confusing God or a being with conflicting wills etc. I believe Piper could have been much stronger in this simple fact, Therefore I affirm that God does not have "two wills" per say but rather, He has "one" will, that can be at times understood in different ways, namely by Precept and Decree.

Just briefly, "precept" has to do with law and commands, therefore when God expresses Himself in a way that demands obedience from us, then this is called God's "preceptive" will. This aspect of God's will can and often is thwarted by sinful humanity. God demands His "precepts/laws" and man often does not comply. God's "decretive" will has been called His "Sovereign/secret" will, or His will whereby God's will is "always" done. Whether it be the sinful actions of humanity or the dropping of a sparrow to the ground. Everything that happens in the Universe has been "decreed" to happen, and does so with a "purpose" known only to God in an ultimate sense, and as an encouragement to all whom love Him and trust in Him, knowing that "all things" are working for those who love Christ, and are the called according to His purpose.

Now let me get to the heart of the matter, and exactly where I disagree with Piper.

In trying to maintain this "two wills" teaching, he compromises certain passages of scripture in order to make his case. He does not seem to fully realise, that he is giving away ground here to those who embrace a synergistic system of theology, a concession he does not have to give, and in the process, he opens up the doors to the whole "well meant offer" debate, that is pretty much embraced today by most evangelicals.

Now I realise he is attempting to put all interpretations of these passages (II Pet.3:9/Ezek.33:11/ I John 2:2/I Tim.2:4, 6; 4:10.) on the table for evaluation, and I even get the feeling that he himself holds to a more robust Calvinist understanding of these passages, but what he actually achieves is a confusion where there never was one.

For me, it is better to stand on your interpretation and defend it with reference to the analogy of faith, rather than concede some ground for the sake of appearing somehow balanced. He is quite right to point out the violence done by Arminians to these passages, but then he goes on to appease them, and in my opinion, give up ground to not only the issue of God's sovereign will, but opens a door to a culture already more than willing to embrace paradox, contradiction and irrationalism.

The "two wills" teaching is now being used to teach that God wants everyone to be saved, and yet God only intends to save His elect.
If you listen to "two wills" teachers, you will hear them speaking in contradictions. It is a sad thing for a Calvinist like me, to hear other Calvinists doing this, and doing it unapologetically.

The fatal flaw in their understanding, relates to their comprehending this supposed "two wills" teaching and a faulty understanding of "Law" and "Grace" as revealed in scripture. The older theologians were much more succinct when discussing these matters. That is why the reformed creeds say such things as,

"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 Nicene Creed if written later would have said, not only "one God", "one Lord", "one baptism" but would have said "One immutable will too! if faced with today's "two wills" theory!" but I digress..

It has been suggested, that people like me merely collapse the "decretive" will into the "preceptive" will, and thereby do damage to the sincere desires found in God, for all to be saved. I find this allegation quite objectionable on many grounds. By the same logic, the Doctrine of Limited atonement could be viewed as a teaching that collapses the genuine "free offer" into insincerity in God, or the doctrine of election into this same dangerous possibility. It is ridiculous.

First of all. It is quite right to speak of God as the "Offended" party, within His rights to command obedience to His law, and therefore, in that sense, He expects or demands this "compliance" from humanity. It is at this point, that the "two wills" theory is put forward in order to make the argument, that what God actually commands, equates exactly to what God Himself desires to see happen in all men without exception, meaning precisely that God desires that all be saved

Now, I am not going to discuss the Arminian interpretations for the passages mentioned above, but deal with what many Calvinists are currently teaching in regards to the "two wills" teaching.

Act 17:30 "Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent"

The popular inference drawn from this passage, with minimal balance from other scriptures, is meant to teach that what God commands = what God desires to see happen. It is as if the word "command" and "desire" are synonyms.

Now bear in mind the "big idea" behind the view that teaches that God "wants all men" to be saved, is their understanding of these passages, and dare I say it, the complete lack of balance with reference to other passages that are quite clear and address the Divine intention in the atonement. Such as the High Priestly prayer prior to the crucifixion, where Jesus prays, "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." John 17:9

Does this passage speak to the idea that God desires for all men to be saved? In any sense? Or As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom 9:13 Surely, these passages have something to do with the subject matter pertaining to this "two wills" teaching? Is it not much more Biblical to teach that in the matter of salvation, rather than declaring that God wants everyone to be saved, is it not scriptural to teach what scripture plainly states, such as

For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Rom 9:15
Together with, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens." Rom 9:18 Today, it is a given, that if you challenge the "two wills" teaching or the "well meant offer" doctrine, you are an unbalanced and myopic Hyper Calvinist. So be it, and yet one does not have to negate the "free offer of the gospel" in order to reject what the modern proponents are teaching.

As a Calvinist, I hold to the promise of salvation in the gospel, preached universally to all where the gospel is sent, with the condition being "repentance and faith". I affirm that we can and must "plead" with sinners to repent and believe the gospel. I affirm that man has a duty to obey everything that God commands, and that includes repentance and faith in Christ for salvation. The fact man has "no ability" to do so, is neither here nor there, and as I am not arguing with Arminians, I shall say no more upon "responsibility does not imply ability".

The point is, one can be a balanced Calvinist and affirm the "free offer" without having to embrace the paradoxical theology connected with the "two wills" theory and or the "well meant offer" controversy. In the same way that the "free offer" does not imply "ability" from man, the command to repent and believe does not imply that God "desires" the salvation of all men. It is imported into scripture.

In fact, the Bible teaches quite clearly that the "free offer" of the gospel is "One call" that goes out to whomever hears it. Upon this proclamation, there is the promise of salvation for all who will repent. Calvinist Theologians have been careful here to explain this "one call" having a "two-fold" purpose. It is sometimes called the "General call, which "includes" the Special or Inward call to the elect" One call, two purposes.

I am arguing that behind that "One call", there is a God with "One will", and that will is always accomplished, just as His "decretive" will is always done. (For many are called, but few chosen. Mat 22:14) and (to the one we are the savor of death to death, and to the other we are the savor of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things? 2Co 2:16)

What the "two wills" teaching does is introduce a kind of conflation within the Godhead. It is as if God is both willing to save everyone and only the elect at the same time. It is contradiction, not paradox or even mystery. It is straight out contradiction, and I assure everyone that God is not confused, nor does He desire the salvation of everyone, as these teachers have us believe.

I have provided the basis above for the call of the gospel, and there is no "two wills" there to be found as scripture affirms. Two-fold aspect regarding the "One" general call, yes, but "two wills", absolutely not.

Just for the record. It was not Calvinism that steered many Calvinists in this direction, but actually men who held loosely to the "L" in the five points of Calvinism. It was ever the ambition of the Arminian together with the Amerauldians and others to link the "free offer" with the atoning work of Jesus Christ.Others within the reformed movement went further and embraced not only a "well meant offer" to all men without exception, but tied it all in with "Common grace" and the atonement.

Probably without doubt, it was the respected Dutch Theologian Abraham Kuyper who spearheaded the modern "common grace" movement that enamoured the likes of John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and Van Til, however, I believe Kuyper's own warning was not heeded. He had said that some men might run with his teachings upon grace, to such an extreme, and end up doing damage to the atonement and evangelism/preaching. I believe that has happened in our day and particularly the last century.

I only have to think of the recent attempt to reach out to the Mormon Church by Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard J. Mouw. A man who embraces the modern "common grace" argument to an extreme. If we want to throw the "Hyper" name around, then one can make the argument, that these Calvinists that are pushing "Common grace", "well meant offer" and universal "expiation" are the "Hyper" Calvinists. It seems to me, that the real "Hypers" are laughing at all of this, and Calvinists are becoming more and more confused about these matters.

There also seems to be a kind of fear out there in Calvinist circles, that if we do not teach this modern well meant offer, with this "two wills" import, we shall be ridiculed, shunned and shamed. I personally have been on the receiving end of this mood, and it ain't pretty as they say. Nonetheless, often it seems like a witch hunt!

The prevailing mood runs like this. Who are the so called Calvinists that dare question the wisdom of the many? Let us shut them out, quiet them, ridicule them at any cost. We are repeatedly told that the world needs to hear that God is desiring that all who hear the gospel be saved. That is the message we must have for a dying world. Unless we present the gospel in that way, we are merely giving out "information" rather than offering Christ to all men.

I have had conversations with these Calvinists, who have ridiculed everything that I have just said, and then turned right around and have said "more or less" what I did say, just changing the sentence slightly, in order to make some huge difference, and yet I wonder if they even heard what I said! What they heard originally was that I challenged certain aspects of "well meant offer" and challenged the "two wills" teaching and that I challenged the "Universal expiation" teaching and that I challenged the "Common grace linked with the Atonement" idea, and kaboom!, all ears are suddenly deaf to what I then say from that point on.

In conclusion, I just want to say precisely what I do affirm and reject.

1/ I affirm Common grace as historically defined, but back away from the type that Richard J. Mouw embraces. I do not strictly link the atonement with Common grace, but I do believe there are temporal benefits for the Non Elect, that are by-products of those who are the called. Having saved sinners in the culture is a benefit to the culture, and has a positive effect for all men without exception.

Generally, common grace is that kindness or benevolence of God the Creator, bestowed upon the unworthy, things like rain and sunshine, family and health, and even life and all of its legitimate pleasures, without immediate punishment for rebellion, are all elements of common grace.
Together with God restraining evil in the society, common grace is certainly biblical.

2/ I affirm the theological construction regarding "two wills" as a tool that helps us understand the Preceptive and Decretive will, and that it is not an artificial distinction demanded by Calvinistic theology. Knowing what God's will is with regards to the "well meant offer", depends upon exegesis of scripture, and not upon the theory that God actually has two wills pertaining to salvation.

Where I disagree with Piper, is where he states the "two wills" in the following way,

"The terms are an effort to describe the whole of biblical revelation. They are an effort to say Yes to all of the Bible and not silence any of it. They are a way to say Yes to the universal, saving will of 1 Timothy 2:4 and Yes to the individual unconditional election of Romans 9:6-23."

3/ I reject any "well meant offer" that presumes that God is desiring for all to be saved to whom the gospel is preached. Men say God desires all men to be saved, I say that is not true.

This issue confuses God being pleased when sinners repent, or that He gets no pleasure from the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11) with the false conclusion that God is sincerely desiring for all men to be saved. (it is true that God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but scripture also affirms that God is pleased at their destruction, so to use these passages to come to the conclusion that God desires for all men without exception to be saved is eisogesis at best and contradiction at worst."

To illustrate a practical example, if a person wants to know if God wants to save him, we can certainly assure the person, that God rejoices over every sinner that repents and trusts in the Son, who has come to save His people from their sins, and that God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but assuredly, He will punish the wicked who remain in unbelief.

Such an example not only gives hope to the sinner, but proclaims the freedom of God in salvation. It is a faithful proclamation, rather than an anthropocentric one.

3/ I affirm what has been called "the free offer of the gospel", that is, the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel to all that will hear it, and I affirm that upon the condition of repentance and faith, whosoever believes shall be saved. I affirm that this obedience (which results from grace) pleases God and the Holy Angels. The word "offer" meaning "proclamation", as the gospel itself is not an offer per say, but actually a command! (2Th 1:8, 1Pe_4:17. )

I affirm that God shall show mercy to whomever He shall show mercy, and therefore I reject that God desires the salvation of all men without exception.(Rom 9:15, Rom 9:18, Joh 17:9, Mat 9:13, Mar 2:17, Luk 5:32.)

I affirm that God has "one call" with a twofold aspect to it (general and effectual), and therefore it would be a contradiction to say that this "One call" has a desire for all without exception to be saved and yet the same call is the very means to draw His elect people. (Mat 22:14)
God is not irrational, nor does He have conflicting desires within the Godhead. Scripture proclaims that God gets "all" of His desires.

"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;"(Isa 46:10) "all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What doest thou?'"(Daniel 4:35). "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted". "(Job 42:2)Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases". (Psalm 115:3)

Much more could be said and countless more scriptures given in order to uphold my argument presented here. I give this brief written piece to generate discussion. For light rather than heat. For reason rather than irrationalism. For God's glory rather than mans post modern felt needs.
As Pilate said long ago, "What I have written, I have written." Joh 19:22

[Guest]

Soaring eagle, I'm not sure if you agree, or disagree with the post you recently submitted, by the guy named tartanarmy...

It was very frustrating for me to read, probably due to my unfamiliarity with the terms and catch-phrases he used, and my disagreement with some of his incoorect assertions. For example:

I assure everyone that God is not confused, nor does He desire the salvation of everyone,

Though I agree that God is not confused, I strongly disagree with the next statement he made here, and at other places in his "piece", that God does not desire tha salvation of all. I think he's "whacked". What do you think?

Have you still questions about the two wills of God?

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

No, I do not agree with his "thesis" if you will. I only posted it here because the guy posted it as his own view in light of what Piper wrote and Steve's response of Piper's article.

[Guest]

OK, Thanks....but have you resolved your question about the two "wills" of God?

peace, dmatic