# The Divided and Compound Sense



## JWJ (Oct 21, 2005)

I wanted to begin this thread to help all, myself included, better understand and apply the hermeneutic distinction of the compound and divided sense. Also, looking through some treads dealing with "œtough" biblical issues, I believe there is a tendency to sometimes misuse or misapply this distinction in order to quickly, and wrongly I might add, try to solve the issue. For those not familiar with this hermeneutic classification I would suggest reading some previous threads, Turretin´s works (as he was the person who coined these terms), and especially Matthew´s (Webmaster) book on the Two Wills of God.

As we begin I want to first make sure all is on the same page as far a defining the compound and divided sense. Below is a quote from another thread that I think sums up these terms well:



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> The compound and divided sense are Turretin's terms for two ways of looking at God's will.
> 
> ...




With is in mind allow me to start with a couple questions:

Does this classification necessarily do away with the "œwill of decree" and "œwill of command" distinction? In other words is this compound / divided classification better applied in explaining to people the fact that God is the ultimate cause and mover of sin and evil and yet He commands man not to perform sin and evil? Example, It was God´s will (decree / compound sense), God was the ultimate cause and mover, that David commit adultery with Bathsheba and kill or husband, Uriah. Yet it was God´s will (command / divided sense) that David not commit adultery and kill. 

For those who do not like the language "œultimate cause and mover" this was dealt with in another thread so let´s not labor this issue. The issue we are dealing with is what hermeneutic classification would be better used and applied, and why? If one chooses to use the will of decree and will of command classification are they really implying that there are two wills in God? After all, even Turretin in his Institutes kept this distinction and applied it to cases like the above.

Secondly, in 1 Sam. 15 we read that God is said to have repented for making Saul king and God is not like man that he could repent. I have too often witnessed people in a flippant manner appeal to the compound and divided sense for this and like narratives. Now granted appealing to the compound and divided sense classification helps assure us that there is no contradiction in Scripture or in the will of God. However, it does nothing to add to the narratives over all teaching, and especially its application to our lives. In other words to just say that when one reads like narratives that God is speaking in a divided sense, that God is merely condescending to our finite level, robs one of the ultimate teaching behind this narrative. 

The question should be why is God in this narrative speaking in this manner? What are we to learn and apply in our lives regarding God speaking to us in this manner? What attribute (s) is God conveying to me in speaking in this manner? How can I apply this to my current life or like circumstances in the church?

I think it would be kind of fun and edifying if we would list some other narratives / texts / cases where this compound and divided classification can be used and exegete the passage by asking the above questions. 


Jim


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2005)

God repenteth not/God repented

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 

Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. 

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Deu 32:36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left. 


In the compound, God does NOT repent; in the divided, he does.



[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> God repenteth not/God repented
> 
> Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
> ...



Scott,

You quoted some good texts and your concluding statement is true. However, all you done was just to state the obvious. Now take each text and explain the significance of why God is speaking in this manner. 

Jim


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Scott and Jim,

When scripture speaks of God's right arm, that is a metonymn right ?
An anthropomorphism.

So when it speaks of God repenting, or becoming furious, isn't that called anthropopathism ?

Why even go to the two wills idea ?

The Bible can speak poetically about God without being theologically accurate (ie. shadow of His wings).

Just curious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2005)

Mark,
Anthropromorpics are not the same. One is analogous, the other not.


----------



## JWJ (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Scott and Jim,
> 
> When scripture speaks of God's right arm, that is a metonymn right ?
> ...



This is the point. The two wills idea does not necessarily fit in these cases all the time. Moreover, the compound and divided sense approach may not always be the best method to explain certain texts or cases. Additionally, when we use the compound / divided method we need to be mindful of the significance of why God chose to speak in this manner.

Jim


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

There is nothing analagous about God being ONE.

When I hear "two wills" that scares me.


*Metonymy:* or, Change Noun, the change of a word naming an object for another word closely associated with it.

a. When the cause is put for the effect (instrument for product): Psalm 5:9(10) "Their throat (for speech) is an open sepulchre." 

b. When the effect is put for the cause (reverse of the above): Psalm 18:2 "I will love you, O Yahweh, my strength."

c. When the object is put for something pertaining to it (metonymy of subject): Isaiah 38:16 "The grave cannot praise you."

d. When that which pertains to anything is put for the thing itself (metonymy of adjunct): (Opposite of the above c.) I Samuel 15:29 "The eternity of Israel will not lie nor repent."


* Anthropomorphism:* the representation of God in the form of, or with the attributes of a man. Psalm 130:2 "Lord hear my voice: let your ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications."

* Anthropopatheia: * or, Condescension, the ascribing the passions and emotions of men to God. Psalm 104:31 "Yahweh shall rejoice in his works." Gen. 6:6 "It repented Yahweh that he made man." Psalm 5:5(6) "You hate all the workers of iniquity."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2005)

Anthropomorphics are to be viewed as anthropomorphic. We all know God does not have wings! 

God is one! The compound and divided senses are a tool men use to understand things that may seems as contradictory and are obviously not.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

I guess I need to read Matt's book.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I guess I need to read Matt's book.



It's a very scholarly work. A must read for everyone. There are extensive quotations from many of the reformed greats, and extensive exegetical work to back up the view.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 21, 2005)

Remember, the compound and divided sense are OUR lenses for looking at God through 1) decree and 2) accomodation.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

Matt, we would not solve the Calvinist/Arminian debate that way (ie. our perspective vs. God's), so why the will of God antinomy ?

(not trying to be argumentative, just curious)

And what do you think about Aristotle's categories of cause (material, efficient, formal, final) ? Do they fit into your idea in the book ?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Matt, we would not solve the Calvinist/Arminian debate that way (ie. our perspective vs. God's), so why the will of God antinomy ?



I have thought about this, and am interested to hear what others have to say. My take is that the compound sense is how we view God from his vantage point. The divided sense is how we view God from our vantage point.

Where this breaks down (in relation to the Calvinist/Arminian arena) is that the Arminian viewpoint is a gross distortion of the divided sense.

I think the compound divided sense could more appropriately be applied to God´s covenant. In my mind at least, the Covenant of Redemption is a view of God´s covenant in the compound sense. In this sense, Christ is fulfilling the Covenant of Works on our behalf, by way of contract with the father. Hence it is to us, unconditional (based exclusively on the infinite merits and works of Christ). The Covenant of Grace, is that same covenant, but viewed in the divided sense. In this sense, we perform faith as a condition of the covenant. We believe, and therefore we are saved. How is this not Arminianism? Even in this sense, faith is a gift from Christ himself, and therefore not up to our ability to earn or merit. He gives us the one gift that meets the one condition for the COG. But this is precisely what Arminianism teaches!


----------



## JWJ (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Or just maybe this would be a wrong application / misuse of the senses? 

Jim


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Matt, we would not solve the Calvinist/Arminian debate that way (ie. our perspective vs. God's), so why the will of God antinomy ?
> 
> (not trying to be argumentative, just curious)
> ...



Mark - 

Unfortunately, the Arminian and Calvinistic debate will rage on because Arminianism fails to give up their theological error. Its not about "hermenutics" perse, but about whether the Arminian beleives man is totally depraved, or not (for example).

However, it DOES solve a whole host of theological problems surrounding anthropomorphisms, abthropopathisms, and the difficult passages surrounding those accomodating facts and how they relate (if they do) to the decrees of God.

I don't really deal with Aristotle in the work. I am more insterested in that piece of refuting some of the nonsensical statements made by theologians who try to accommodate everything in the Bible under ONE sense (which is theologically impossible without giving up truth, or calling things "too mysterious to figure out").


----------

