2 Wills of God

[chosenNJ]

Hello,

I am new to the board. My discussion is about verses that seem to speak about God desiring all to be saved. Not that God saves all, but has a desire in one sense to save all men, however does not for reasons unknown to man, hence mystery. I do not believe this is the case at this point because the idea is so new to me. Multiple verses seem to lead to this idea of God having two will's. But if these verses can be shown to not be supportive of the desire on the part of God who is not willing for any to perish (universally), then I won't even consider it.

Ez 18:32
1 Tim 4:10
Luke 13:34, Matthew 23:37
Luke 19:41-42

Concerning John Calvin, in his Institutes, Calvin attributes passages like Mt 23:37 as being anthropomorphic expressions - - attributing human actions to God. But then Calvin admits that God "mysteriously wills what now seems to be adverse to his will," yet we should not say God wills opposites.

chosenNJ

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Welcome to the board! I know there are some other threads on the board on this question somewhere that you may want to look for. Also check out this link to an article by John Piper: Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
I would say that God does not have 2 opposing wills, but that there are 2 facets to his will.

 

[christianyouth]

The idea that God has a desire to save all people is definitely a dominant view in historic Reformed theology, but I have no idea how to understand this.

God desires all to be saved, but he only chooses some to be saved.

 

[MW]

There are a few threads on PB on this subject. In short, the revealed will is non-volitional, and so not regarded by reformed theologians as God's will properly speaking. Those who attribute a volitional sense to the revealed will effectively make two wills in God and, as far as I can see, two Gods.

 

[jaybird0827]

Hello,

I am new to the board. My discussion is about verses that seem to speak about God desiring all to be saved. Not that God saves all, but has a desire in one sense to save all men, however does not for reasons unknown to man, hence mystery. I do not believe this is the case at this point because the idea is so new to me. Multiple verses seem to lead to this idea of God having two will's. But if these verses can be shown to not be supportive of the desire on the part of God who is not willing for any to perish (universally), then I won't even consider it.

Ez 18:32
1 Tim 4:10
Luke 13:34, Matthew 23:37
Luke 19:41-42

Concerning John Calvin, in his Institutes, Calvin attributes passages like Mt 23:37 as being anthropomorphic expressions - - attributing human actions to God. But then Calvin admits that God "mysteriously wills what now seems to be adverse to his will," yet we should not say God wills opposites.

chosenNJ

to the PB. Nice to have you.

I am originally from north Jersey. Whereabouts are you located?

 

[chosenNJ]

Hi all,

Im from central NJ Jay. Its nice to find a good reformed board to talk to Christians.

I bring this topic up because while at Church someone mentioned Christ died for all, then I said, no, Christ died for the elect alone. My reason for saying that came from "For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). I later asked him, did all die? and in this context its talking about the old man dying and regeneration. So are all regenerated? Also Rom 6:8 "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him..." Are all going to live with Him? Of course not. So "all" doesn't always mean "all" in a universal sense.

Next my discussion lead me to several verses that was somehow supportive of the universal "all".

1 Peter 3:18 Christ died once for all- through my studies the two words "once" and "all" come from the same Greek word "hapax" which has nothing to do with extent, but simply means "one time, never to be done again" My wife wants our home renovations to simply be done once and for all. She doesn't want to do anymore renovations, none. So Christ died once and for all, meaning, one time never to be done again.

1 Tim 2- here the word "all" is used of prayers and petitions, God desires all men to be saved, Christ's ransom was for all, and for all men everywhere to pray. Again through my studies I found the word "all" in this context doesn't always mean "all" universally. Imagine if we had to pray and offer petitions for all men? There are how many people in the world? 6 Billion? Even the Arminian has to limit this idea of "all" because are we to pray for the dead? Abraham Lincoln was an authority. So I stuck with Paul and whom he said in context to pray for, those in authority etc. Next, is not God's desires done? Does God not will or desire something that is just not accomplished? Then we have Christ's ransom for all, isn't a ransom from the NT something paid? Not just a potential payment? So then did Christ pay the fine of all sinner's sins? Hence all are guilt free? Last, are all men everywhere to pray? even people living in North America? Australia? It just doesn't make sense to me when taken as the universal "all" and doesn't seem to line up with scripture or immediate context.

Luke 13:34 ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!" At face value this seems to show a desire on the part of God for "all" Israel to be saved. In context I see this is a conversation between our Lord and the religious leaders, and it was these leaders Jesus was speaking to. The temple residing in Jerusalem, and the religious leaders home base, which was going to be left to them desolate, they were the ones who didn't allow the Lord to gather the children. These religious apostates were the ones who would not have it. It seems God desired to gather the children, and He did and does, but this desire was for the little ones, and not for these false teachers who killed the prophets and stones those sent to her.

1 Tim 4- I am still looking over, but if Christ is to be the Savior of all men, especially of believers, there are several ways it can be taken. Still looking into this one, but your comments are welcome.

Ezekiel 18:32- still looking into, your comments welcome
Luke 19:41-42- "" "" ""

My thought on this is as follows. There are a few passages that at face value can be read as a desire on the part of God to save all, but chose only some, limited atonement. I can believe in mystery, paradox, if this is the case. However if the verses like 1 Tim 2, 1 Peter 3:18 and others can be shown that "all" doesn't always refer to all universally and there is actually another interpretation that stays consistant with context and correlates with the rest of scripture, then there would not be a need for the mystery idea of God's two will's or God's will and arrangements though they may be different.

I'm ever reforming to the word of God, so I am open to your thoughts.

chosenNJ

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Excerpt from John Owen's Death of Death (Book 2, Chapter 4) regarding God's desire for the salvation of all (and love for all):

First, " God," say they [Arminians and Amyraldians], "considering all mankind as fallen from that grace and favour in Adam wherein they were created . . . by his infinite goodness was inclined to desire the happiness of them, all and every one, that they might be delivered from misery, and be brought unto himself;" which inclination of his they call his universal love and antecedent will, whereby he would desirously have them all to be saved; out of which love he sendeth Christ.

Obs. 1. That God hath any natural or necessary inclination, by his goodness, or any other property, to do good to us, or any of his creatures, we do deny. Every thing that concerns us is an act of his free will and good pleasure, and not a natural, necessary act of his Deity, as shall be declared.

Obs 2. The ascribing an antecedent conditional will unto God, whose fulfilling and accomplishment should depend on any free, contingent act or work of ours, is injurious to his wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and cannot well be excused from blasphemy; and is contrary to Rom. ix. 10, "Who hath resisted his will?" I say,--

Obs. 3. A common affection and inclination to do good to all doth not seem to set out the freedom, fulness, and dimensions of that most intense love of God which is asserted in the Scripture to be the cause of sending his Son; as John iii. 16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Eph. i. 9, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself." Col.'i. 19, "It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." Rom. v. 8, "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." These two I shall, by the Lord's assistance, fully clear, if the Lord give life and strength, and his people encouragement, to go through with the second part of this controversy.

Obs. 4. We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die; God having "made some for the day of evil," Prov. xvi 4; "hated them before they were born," Rom. ix. 11, 13; "before of old ordained them to condemnation," Jude 4; being "fitted to destruction," Rom. ix. 22; "made to be taken and destroyed," 2 Pet. ii. 12; "appointed to wrath," 1 Thess. v. 9; to "go to their own place," Acts i. 25.

Bracket at the top of quote is mine.

 

[MW]

Obs 2. The ascribing an antecedent conditional will unto God, whose fulfilling and accomplishment should depend on any free, contingent act or work of ours, is injurious to his wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and cannot well be excused from blasphemy; and is contrary to Rom. ix. 10, "Who hath resisted his will?"

Regrettably, this is precisely what the revealed will of God is construed as in modern discussions even by "reformed" theologians.

 

[Jon Peters]

Obs 2. The ascribing an antecedent conditional will unto God, whose fulfilling and accomplishment should depend on any free, contingent act or work of ours, is injurious to his wisdom, power, and sovereignty, and cannot well be excused from blasphemy; and is contrary to Rom. ix. 10, "Who hath resisted his will?"

Regrettably, this is precisely what the revealed will of God is construed as in modern discussions even by "reformed" theologians.

I'm not questioning you on this, I absolutely believe you. But I am curious as to what "reformed" theologians you had in mind?

Thanks.

 

[MW]

I'm not questioning you on this, I absolutely believe you. But I am curious as to what "reformed" theologians you had in mind?

Those who espouse what has come to be called the well-meant offer. E.g., John Murray, in "The Free offer of the Gospel:"

in the free offer there is expressed not simply the bare preceptive will of God but the disposition of lovingkindness on the part of God pointing to the salvation to be gained through compliance with the overtures of gospel grace.

As can be seen, this creates a third category of "will" in God, one that is not either preceptive or decretive, but a mixture of both. It is expressed as a desire for men to comply with an imagined "disposition" in God which God has not determined shall come to pass. This is what John Owen identifies as an Arminian concept, which he calls "an antecedent conditional will unto God, whose fulfilling and accomplishment should depend on any free, contingent act or work of ours."

 

[chosenNJ]

I would really like the texts to be addressed. I've been searching but am having a difficult time in doing so.

chosenNJ

 

[MW]

I would really like the texts to be addressed. I've been searching but am having a difficult time in doing so.

Ezek. 18:32.
It is the prophet's commission to the exiles who complained they were suffering for their fathers' sins. If they repented it would not be God's pleasure to punish them; just as if a righteous man turns to inquity his former righteousness is no exemption from punishment. See my review of John Murray's Free Offer in the Blue Banner for more detailed explanation of this covenant sanction.

1 Tim 4:10.
God is the Saviour of all men. There is no other Saviour. It is a general truth which does not address the subject of salvation from sin in particular or Christ as the means thereof.

Luke 13:34, Matthew 23:37. Luke 19:41-42.
Some understand it to be referring to divine indignation. So Calvin. Most understand it as referring to the human nature in which Christ expresses compassion as a minister of the circumcision and one made under the law obliged to love his neighbour as himself. I take the latter to be more consistent with the expression of weeping, which is undeniably an action proper only to the human nature.

 

[a mere housewife]

Here is the web address for the blue banner article:

http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf

"Obs. 1. That God hath any natural or necessary inclination, by his goodness, or any other property, to do good to us, or any of his creatures, we do deny. Every thing that concerns us is an act of his free will and good pleasure, and not a natural, necessary act of his Deity, as shall be declared."

This point also seems to be undermined (at least in what I have read) by those who want to make the covenant of redemption an analogy for the Trinity?