# God's Will of Disposition



## Peairtach (Jun 22, 2015)

I haven't interacted closely with or yet studied carefully the debates on the board about the "well meant offer" , or read what Professor Murray and Mr Winzer have had to say about it.

I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on R.C. Sproul's concept that God can be spoken of as having a "Will of Disposition", along with, or in relation to, His Decretive and Preceptive Wills? What other theologians have spoken about God having such a Will of Disposition?

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/wills_sproul.html


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 22, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> I haven't interacted closely with or yet studied carefully the debates on the board about the "well meant offer" , or read what Professor Murray and Mr Winzer have had to say about it.
> 
> I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on R.C. Sproul's concept that God can be spoken of as having a "Will of Disposition", along with, or in relation to, His Decretive and Preceptive Wills? What other theologians have spoken about God having such a Will of Disposition?
> 
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/wills_sproul.html



Based on what I've read in Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and various other works, the orthodox Reformed scholastics spoke of two primary categories, the _voluntas beneplaciti_ (will of good pleasure/decretive will) and the _voluntas signi_ (will of sign/revealed will). A third category of "will of disposition" seems quite confusing to me if it does not fall under one of these two primary categories of speaking of the will of God. I'll be interested to hear what others have to say.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 22, 2015)

Below is from Pastor Sproul with ( ) comment....."For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, (If He considers them as a creature in of themselves, which is personal) yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked (for the sinful acts they commit which is judicial)".

When we look at the disposition of God and what The Son did for the elect it is apparent that any eternal blessedness they receive is a result of His loving kindness, which the reprobate receive none, other than a lessening of wrath from which The Holy Spirit restrains them doing more wickedness they would do if not restrained.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 22, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> I haven't interacted closely with or yet studied carefully the debates on the board about the "well meant offer" , or read what Professor Murray and Mr Winzer have had to say about it.
> 
> I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on R.C. Sproul's concept that God can be spoken of as having a "Will of Disposition", along with, or in relation to, His Decretive and Preceptive Wills? What other theologians have spoken about God having such a Will of Disposition?
> 
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/wills_sproul.html



It sounds like Sproul is saying that God's will of disposition is what He takes delight in or what pleases Him.

Sproul also teaches that God's decretive will is His ordination of what will come to pass and God's preceptive will is His set of commands given to people.


----------



## MW (Jun 22, 2015)

Basically, as Bryan observed, there are two senses in which the word "will" is used of God. One uses the term properly to refer to volition in God, and this is His eternal and unchangeable decree. This is what God wills to happen. The other sense is a figurative use of the word will, and so called the will of "sign." This refers to the commandments of God in which He signifies to man those things which are pleasing to Him. Scripture only uses the word "will" in these two senses. The first relates to the futurition of things, or what shall come to pass from God's perspective; the second relates to the obligation of things, or what should come to pass from man's perspective.

Some theologians find this twofold distinction too narrow, and attempt to introduce a third category which is more reflective of human psychology. R. L. Dabney called it a conative power; others, like Prof. Murray, regarded it as a disposition. By their own admission they were attempting to look behind the revelation of grace and to find a will in God which is neither decretive nor preceptive. The problem is that this third category of will is made dependent upon the creature for its fulfilment. Upon accepting the notion of a conditional will in God one is forced to limit the statements of Scripture which plainly declare that God does according to His will and fulfils all His pleasure.

In sum, the third category of will is speculative, imposes upon God an element of human psychology, seeks to look beyond Scripture, paints God as being dependent on human will in some sense, and robs Him of the glory of His all-sufficient blessedness.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 22, 2015)

Amen, Matthew. It seems to me that God's preceptive will includes not only what man ought to do, but what God desires that he do. So, to postulate a third will as a "will of disposition" (or as Sproul has called it elsewhere, his Desiderative will - will of desire) is to introduce confusion. It is an attempt to support the notion that God desires the salvation of all mankind. But, How can God desire the salvation of all men, not all actially being saved, without introducing an eternally frustrated God? It makes no sense to me. The Scriptures teach that God accomplishes exactly what he desires, i.e. what pleases him according to his "disposition."


----------



## MW (Jun 22, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> The Scriptures teach that God accomplishes exactly what he desires, i.e. what pleases him according to his "disposition."



Exactly. So the idea of an intrinsic will in God which is unfulfilled introduces a qualification where holy Scripture makes none.

Moreover, it supposes God's disposition is limited to "grace," and overtly excludes "justice" as a principle which God is disposed to manifest for His glory. Whereas, from the reformed position, it is the will of decree which has determined how grace and justice shall be manifested in the case of each individual.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 23, 2015)

Friends,


While Samuel Rutherford does not use the category of 'disposition', he does describe something similar in his affirmation of the antecedent aspect of the Will of God (distinct from both the Revealed Will and the God's Will of Good-Pleasure).

The link below contains a summary of Rutherford on God's Antecedent Will by Guy Richard, who wrote his dissertation on Rutherford. 

Unfortunately Richard left Rutherford's Latin untranslated, though Bobby Phillips is presently working on translating the paragraph on the webpage now, and may translate the whole 30 page section from his _Exercitationes apologeticae pro divina gratia_ where Rutherford discusses God's antecedent will at length.

I will put up the translation on the webpage when it becomes available (it has not ever been translated into English before).


Samuel Rutherford on God's Antecedent Will​

Also, Bryan, do note Richard's referencing Muller's PRRD, vol. 3.


Blessings.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Here is Samuel Rutherford in plain English.



> And because they [the Arminians] say, there is in the Almighty an antecedent natural affection and desire, that justice may be satisfied in men and angels; which affection is in order of nature prior, and before God's full, peremptory, and deliberate will of damning all, that are finally obstinate; as there is a natural antecedent will in God, to call, invite to repentance, offer Christ to all, and will the salvation of all and every one, which is afore and precedent to his peremptory, complete, and irrevocable decree of electing to glory, all that God foreseeth shall die in the faith of Christ. Upon the same ground, it may well be said, God willeth the damnation of all, and every one of mankind, and the salvation and repentance of none at all; and that Christ died upon no intention natural to redeem or save any, but upon a conditional and natural desire, that justice might be declared in the just destruction of all; *for sure*, *all God's natural affections and desires of justice*, *are as natural and essential to him*, *and so as universally extended toward the creature*, *as his desires and antecedent natural affections of mercy*. -- Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, 443-444.



The Latin work teaches essentially the same thing and uses the same types of argument. Prof. Rutherford explicitly spoke against the idea that there was an antecedent will in God which was conditional and unfulfilled. He demonstrated that the Remonstrant method of arguing from an antecedent will leads to "natural" justice as well as "natural" grace, and thereby destroys the grace of the gospel because it "naturally" leads to the conclusion that God desires the damnation of all.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Following up the reference to Richard Muller, it is made abundantly clear that any explanation of "antecedent will" in reformed theology is not in order to create a third notion of will. The idea of antecedent will is always interpreted so as to maintain that there are only two senses in which Scripture speaks of the will of God, and that the decree of God is His will in the proper sense of the term.
Dr. Muller writes,



> “The distinction of the divine will into antecedent and consequent is used among our theologians,” Rijssen comments, as a reference to the decretive and the preceptive will of God. The former “was determined by God from eternity before any created things existed,” while the latter will rests upon the voluntas decreti as on its proper antecedent. The “Neopelagians” of the age, however, offer a different explanation of the distinction: the antecedent will of God they place, not prior to all creation, but prior to the acts of the creature; and the consequent will they rest not on the voluntas antecedens, but on the will of the creature that precedes it in time. Cocceius similarly points out that there can be no cause of the divine will and certainly no conditioning of the divine will by the creature.



The idea of a conditional, unfulfilled will in God was regarded as being unworthy of God:



> Who, questions Rijssen, would be so foolish as to attribute such wills to God? According to this doctrine, God genuinely wills that which he knows will never happen! Such doctrine makes God foolish and impotent, inasmuch as it claims God antecedently intends something and antecedently desires it to happen when it neither will happen nor can be brought about by human ability — all the while that its non-occurrence is guaranteed because God himself, in another manner, does not will it. The voluntas antecedens, thus defined, is not a will at all but a wish, an incomplete exercise of the faculty, utterly unworthy of an omniscient and omnipotent being.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Samuel Rutherford, the Covenant of Life Opened, p. 37:



> The other bastard ground [of Arminian grace] is, *the natural antecedent desire and love of God to have all saved*, moved him (say they) to make this Covenant of Grace with all. But this makes away free-grace, and changes God as the blind Talmud, which saith God hath a secret place in which he afflicts himself, because he burnt the Temple, and delivered the Jews to captivity. As also, the Lord remembering the captivity of the Jews, and their desolation, he pours out two tears every day in the Sea or Ocean, and for grief, smites his breasts with both his hands. And the Alcoran saith, that God and the Angels wish well to Mahomet, but cannot free him from death. So made the Heathen their Jupiter to deplore the destinies which he could not amend. And what is this, but to say, God hath passionate desires to have all, Elect, and Reprobate, Men, and Angels, to obey and be eternally saved, but he cannot help the matter; and therefore must upon the same account, be sorrowful and mourn that he cannot get all saved, *which destroys the power of grace and restrains the outgoings of free-love*.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Samuel Rutherford, the Covenant of Life Opened, pp. 70-71:



> this is a Gospel-truth now, that stands after the Incarnation, as before, Rom. 9.18, He hath therefore mercy upon whom he will, and hardens whom he will. And he said it in the Old Testament, Exod. 33.19, and repeateth it to us, Rom. 9.15, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. *And if any man say that he hath the like antecedent naturall good-will*, *to save eternally all these* whom he calleth and moveth finally to obey, and the greatest part of mankind whom he so moveth and calleth as he knoweth they shall never obey, whereas he can move all finally to obey, without straining their natural liberty: *He speaks things that cannot consist with both the wisdom and liberty of God*.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Heinrich Heppe quotes Gisbertus Voetius, RD, 90-91:



> Says VOETIUS (V, 88): “Query: whether the will is rightly distinguished into antecedent and consequent. Answer: If by antecedent is meant the declaration of the divine will and of the order laid down by it as between condition and thing conditioned, Yes; e.g., if a man believes and if he perseveres, he will be saved: this is equivalent to the categorical pronouncement that ‘everyone that believes and perseveres will be saved.’ But if by antecedent will is meant the will strictly speaking, or the _beneplacitum_, No. For in God, whether in the act of God willing or apart from the act of willing there is neither before and subsequent, nor antecedent and consequent, nor condition and conditioned, but the pure, single and indivisible _actus_ of the will, by which He wills everything He wills; just as by one most single _actus_ He knows the things that are knowable.”



There is no conditional will in God. God's will determines the conditions by which everything comes to pass.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2015)

Dr Richard states,



> ‘Deum id velle antecedenter… quod vult in antecedenter vult omnes salvari, quatenus dedit omnibus naturam salutis capacem, & media sufficientia non negavit, & Deus id vult consequenter quod non in causa sua, sed in se vult, ut credentes salvari.’ (Exercitationes, p. 323)
> 
> Here we have Rutherford’s explanation of how it is that God can will the salvation of the whole world and yet not have the whole world be saved.



This is in Rutherford's book but it is not Rutherford's view. Dr. Richard was closer to the mark when he noted this idea "is found in such medieval scholastics as Duns Scotus and Durandus." Rutherford was drawing attention to their opinion. His own view followed:



> Et credo scripturam nusquam Deo voluntatem, hoc sensu, tribuere: sic enim Deus tam omnium peccata et exitium aeternum velle dicendus esset:



What is that in plain English? Precisely what he maintained in his English works. Here is the translation:



> And I believe scripture never attributes to God a will in this sense: for so God is said to will to the same extent the sins and eternal destruction of all.


----------



## timfost (Jun 24, 2015)

A separate will of disposition is confusing. If we consider God's "disposition," it seems that we should do it within the parameters of His revealed and decretive will.

John Piper wrote an excellent article on this which includes what I think we would call a disposition in God.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

Having discussed with Rev. Winzer this subject before, I'm sure he will find Piper faulty in this regard, but it seems appropriate for a reformed forum as there is not only one reformed understanding on this topic.



> “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
> Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 55:8)


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2015)

timfost said:


> Having discussed with Rev. Winzer this subject before, I'm sure he will find Piper faulty in this regard, but it seems appropriate for a reformed forum as there is not only one reformed understanding on this topic.



As stated previously, Piper's view is Amyraldian. It is not Reformed.

Piper says,



> There is a genuine inclination in God's heart to spare those who have committed treason against his kingdom. But *his motivation is complex*, and not every true element in it rises to the level of *effective choice*.



Piper avows passion and complexity in God. Moreover, this passion falls short of "choice;" hence it is not "will." He has failed to establish that there are two "wills" in God.

If God's will could be thwarted, His ways would not be above man's, because it is certain that man's will can be thwarted. Isaiah 55:8 confirms the fact that God's will is accomplished, and it is explicitly stated in v. 11: "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but *it shall accomplish that which I please*, *and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it*."


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 24, 2015)

MW said:


> As stated previously, Piper's view is Amyraldian. It is not Reformed.
> 
> Piper says,
> 
> ...




You mean like *William Perkins*, the Father of Puritanism?


"If we compare this text [Matt 23:37, Christ lamenting over Jerusalem] with Isa. 6:10 they seem to be contrary. For here Christ saith, I would have gathered you: there He saith, Harden them that they be not gathered and converted. God therefore seems to will and not to will one and the same thing. 

Answer: *There is but one will in God: yet doth it not equally will all things, but in divers respects it doth will and nill the same thing*. *He wills the conversion of Jerusalem*, in that he approves it as a good thing in itself: in that he commands it, and exhorts men to it: in that He gives them all outward means of their conversion. *He wills it not, in that He did not decree effectually to work their conversion*. For God doth approve, and he may require many things, which nevertheless for just causes known to himself, He will not do. The confirmation of the angels that fell, God approved as a thing good in itself, yet did not He will to confirm them. *A judge in compassion approves and will the life of a malefactour: and yet withall he wills the execution of justice in his death. Even so God sometimes wills that in his signifying will, which he wills not in the will of his good pleasure*."​

_A Treatise of God's Free Grace, and Man's Free Will _(Cambridge, 1601), p. 44​


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 24, 2015)

Travis,

I am only reading one will in what Perkins wrote. Though for man there is God's condescension in order for us to understand God's one will is preceptive and decretive. I do not see a third, like the Piper, and other Amryaldians.

Instead of just quoting Perkins, point out what it is exactly you are trying to say for what you say below is not informative and leaves too much ambiguity as to what message you are conveying. I pray not purposefully.




Travis Fentiman said:


> You mean like William Perkins, the Father of Puritanism?


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> You mean like *William Perkins*, the Father of Puritanism?



Nothing like it! Perkins denied complexity and passion in God, and strictly maintained that God has only one will.


----------



## timfost (Jun 24, 2015)

There is only one will in God. Speaking about a revealed and decretive will is for the purpose of the finite mind understanding what is beyond our capability to comprehend. 

Calvin:


> Still, however, the *will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills*, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it *appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing*. (Institutes 1.18.3)



This is all that Piper was trying to tackle. Concerning passions, let's not forget that the scriptures are full of attributing desire to God, sometimes in relation to what He decrees, sometimes what He does not decree. Attributing this to anthropomorphism certainly is one way to understand it, but if the scriptures use this language, so can we as we should be cautioned against thinking we say it better than scripture.

Calvin:


> So wonderful is his love towards mankind, *that he would have them all to be saved*, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost... *But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish*? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the *hidden purpose of God*, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his *will as made known to us in the gospel*. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (Commentary on 2 Peter 3:9)



Calvin is not alone in this. Unless we are ready to make Amyraldians out of many of our orthodox fathers of the Reformed faith, I beg people to be less careless with this label as you will alienate many through ignorance and one-sided theology. 

Deut. 29:29


> The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 24, 2015)

Rev. Winzer could this "will of disposition" not be towards the reprobate with the thought of common grace which is given to all, which is based on love, albeit in a temporal sense?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 24, 2015)

Travis, this quotation of William Perkins is so far from being apposite for your purposes here that it rather causes me to wonder if you understand the point at issue in any meaningful way.

Let's look at what William Perkins says:

Are there two wills in God? "There is but one will in God."
What do we do with the apparent disparities in how Scripture texts speak about the same thing? "He wills the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approves it as a good thing in itself: in that he commands it, and exhorts men to it: in that He gives them all outward means of their conversion. He wills it not, in that He did not decree effectually to work their conversion."
How may this will be distinguished? "God sometimes wills that in his signifying will, which he wills not in the will of his good pleasure."

These distinctions are the _voluntas signi_ and the _voluntas beneplaciti_ (Calvin's distinction of hidden and revealed will in the cited commentary is not at all dissonant). The signifying willl is not a velleity, internal impulse, or any sort of conditional will. Nor does it in any way attribute passion or complexity to God. These different considerations or forms of speaking about God's will are handily illustrated with regard to prayer. God approves that we should pray for the preservation of the lives of our children; and yet, as with David's son, he does not always decree that their lives should be spared. The father who prayed for the death of his child might be praying in accordance with God's decree and yet contrary to his signifying will. It is a basic axiom of Reformed ethics that it is God's _voluntas signi_ rather than the _voluntas beneplaciti_ which is the rule of our conduct.

That these two ways of speaking about God's will are ultimately connected in one single will is seen by the simple observation that the _voluntas signi_ is what God has decreed to bind us to as a rule for our own action. That is the relation of the signifying will to his good pleasure, and shows that _beneplacitum_ is the strict meaning of will, as Voetius maintained.

These things have been pointed out to you before. Speaking as a moderator, I would remind you that whatever your own views may be, you are are not welcome to misrepresent the teaching of our Reformed antecedents.


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2015)

timfost said:


> This is all that Piper was trying to tackle. Concerning passions, let's not forget that the scriptures are full of attributing desire to God, sometimes in relation to what He decrees, sometimes what He does not decree. Attributing this to anthropomorphism certainly is one way to understand it, but if the scriptures use this language, so can we as we should be cautioned against thinking we say it better than scripture.



This is what you interpret Scripture to say. You and Piper believe that God gave Christ for men who perish in their sins, so it is no surprise you interpret the Scripture to support your idea that God has passions.

Scripture speaks of the moral government of God over the affairs of men, and thus speaks after the manner of men. If you were Reformed you would acknowledge this.


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Rev. Winzer could this "will of disposition" not be towards the reprobate with the thought of common grace which is given to all, which is based on love, albeit in a temporal sense?



No. Common grace towards the reprobate is effective and active. There is no sense of disappointment. God does all that He wills to do in their case.

Justice is good. See Psalms 135-136 for the connection between God's goodness and the punishment of the wicked. When God punishes the wicked He does what is good and pleasing in His sight. Those who teach otherwise serve a sentimental God of their own making.

Grace is amazing! Why God should show grace to wicked sinners is beyond fathoming.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 25, 2015)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Winzer could this "will of disposition" not be towards the reprobate with the thought of common grace which is given to all, which is based on love, albeit in a temporal sense?
> ...



Thank you. I can see to place a passion, feeling, or emotion in God with the word dispostion is not proper. It is amazing indeed He should choose one over another which is soley based on His will and not our intrinisic worth apart from Jesus.


----------



## timfost (Jun 25, 2015)

Clarification: the WCF explains that God does not have passions. I agree insofar as He does not act by impulse and is not acted on and then reactionary. However, God has *compassion* (e.g. Psalm 78:38). I understand that God does not "feel" like us, but I don't think it proper to speculate on His mind, which is why I prefer to speak about Him as He has revealed Himself in His infallible Word. If He speaks about desire even for something that He has not decreed, why would it be unsafe to describe Him how He reveals Himself in His Word? And yes, I speak about desire in God for that which He decrees.

Therefore I am comfortable speaking about desire in God for what He reveals simply because He reveals it that way. If I can't use or am above the language of Scripture, I think I should challenge my language, not the language of Scripture.

I do not claim to know the mind of God beyond what Scripture tells me. To go beyond this creates God in our image. I don't believe this is un-reformed thinking. I began thinking this way after reading Calvin.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 25, 2015)

> If He speaks about desire even for something that He has not decreed, why would it be unsafe to describe Him how He reveals Himself in His Word? And yes, I speak about desire in God for that which He decrees.



God commands everyone to repent of their sin and to believe in Jesus, but God has not decreed that everyone will repent of their sin and believe in Jesus. Is giving a command the same as a desire?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 25, 2015)

Tim, the difficulty is not with using Biblical language; the problem is with importing dogmatic categories into the Biblical language. When we are speaking with theological precision, it is important to clarify what we mean. The problem is not with the Biblical terminology: the problem is with what people use it to convey.

The Bible speaks of God coming down to see what is happening at the construction of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:5). There is no problem with using this language in ordinary speech, in a sermon, article, or what have you. But there is a problem if one then draws conclusions about God needing to find something out, or moving from place to place, etc. When it comes to theology, we understand that God's omniscience and omnipresence mean that we cannot use this form of expression to argue for God's ignorance or limitation to one place at a time. Of course one can speak of God coming down, of God seeing, realizing, etc. But if I don't mean those things figuratively, then I am speaking of a local, successive, learning and changing God: and at that point, my theological importations into the Biblical language are failing to respect the totality of the Bible's affirmations.

Equally, there is no difficulty in using the language of God's desire, regret, hands, feet, feathers, wings, etc. In theology, we are relating all parts of God's word. The doctrine of God's sovereign decree should keep us from the theological speculation of non-executive volitions in God, just as the doctrine of his spirituality keeps from the theological speculation of God being feathered, and the doctrine of his omniscience keeps us from speculating about his ignorance.

In other words, I think it's a mischaracterization to suggest that some people are comfortable with the Biblical language and others aren't. The point of disagreement relates to what that Biblical language warrants in the way of theological conclusion. The conclusion that God has unfulfilled wishes is every bit as much a theological assertion as the conclusion that he doesn't.


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2015)

timfost said:


> I do not claim to know the mind of God beyond what Scripture tells me.



The problem is that you ignore the contextual markers of Scripture and impute everything you read in Scripture to the mind of God. Again, if you were Reformed you would recognise that Scripture expressly speaks after the manner of men because God exercises His moral government over men, not because God is a man who changes.


----------



## timfost (Jun 27, 2015)

Ruben,

I appreciate your point. You explained:



> When we are speaking with theological precision, it is important to clarify what we mean. The problem is not with the Biblical terminology: the problem is with what people use it to convey.



I agree that we need to be careful because apart from the balance of scripture we become one sided. In fact, I spoke with someone just last night (who was trying to persuade me that God desires all to be saved in the sense of classic Arminianism) that although I agreed with him in one sense, we needed to consider the whole counsel of God in relation to God's will. I took him to 1 Sam. 2:25. However, I believe to go to the other extreme that God only desires His decree or simply commanding what man ought to do is equally fallacious and one-sided. I like how Calvin describes it below:



> Now, if the genuine meaning of the prophet [Ezekiel] is inquired into, it will be found that he only means to give the hope of pardon to them who repent. The sum is, that God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. *Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance*. But experience shows *that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts*. (_Institutes_ 3.24.15)



In all seriousness, I think it's a good rule of thumb to not aim at greater precision than the words of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). I am not ready to take the myriad of verses that speak about God's displeasure and anger and say that He is actually pleased. Deut. 29:29 teaches me not to do this.

In this way, I think Murray/Stonehouse hit the nail on the head with the _Free Offer_. It would be unfortunate to say that they were not reformed or Amyraldian.


----------



## timfost (Jun 27, 2015)

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > I do not claim to know the mind of God beyond what Scripture tells me.
> ...



I think it is unfortunate that you understand me to be imputing "everything _ read in Scripture to the mind of God." I've expressly stated that I do not know the mind of God. All I have is what I've been given in the Scripture. I would respectfully ask if you impute everything you know about human logic to the mind of God? I would submit that you have a presupposition that understands God through the finite and not the infinite. Since the Scriptures reveal the mind of God, a presupposition based in the terminology directly revealed by the Object of Scripture is far more precise than anything based in human logic, regardless how "illogical" it may sound to the creature.




10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the *Spirit searches all things*, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? *Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God*. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, *not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches*, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are *foolishness to him*; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 *For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ*. (1 Cor. 2)

Click to expand...

_


----------



## py3ak (Jun 27, 2015)

I doubt anyone means to disagree with Calvin's statement in the _Institutes_. I can't see a way to read him as being farther from my position than from yours, however.



timfost said:


> In all seriousness, I think it's a good rule of thumb to not aim at greater precision than the words of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).



I'm sure the impetus for this position is pious; but it overlooks the reality of error in the church. Scripture communicates precise concepts not through a technical exactitude of language but as its teachings are compared and correlated. The precise, technical vocabulary that summarizes this Scripture teaching is necessary; without it we are left to the good faith of heretics. Since you enjoy Calvin, consider these words:



> Now, although the heretics rail at the word “person,” or certain squeamish men cry out against admitting a term fashioned by the human mind, they cannot shake our conviction that three are spoken of, each of which is entirely God, yet that there is not more than one God. What wickedness, then, it is to disapprove of words that explain nothing else than what is attested and sealed by Scripture!
> It would be enough, they say, to confine within the limits of Scripture not only our thoughts but also our words, rather than scatter foreign terms about, which would become seedbeds of dissension and strife. For thus are we wearied with quarreling over words, thus by bickering do we lose the truth, thus by hateful wrangling do we destroy love.
> If they call a foreign word one that cannot be shown to stand written syllable by syllable in Scripture, they are indeed imposing upon us an unjust law which condemns all interpretation not patched together out of the fabric of Scripture. But if that is “foreign” which has been curiously devised and is superstitiously defended, which conduces more to contention than to edification, which is made use of either unseasonably or fruitlessly, which by its harshness offends pious ears, which detracts from the simplicity of God’s Word—I wholeheartedly embrace their soberness. For I do not feel that concerning God we should speak with less conscientiousness than we should think, since whatever by ourselves we think concerning him is foolish, and whatever we speak, absurd. Yet some measure ought to be preserved: we ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, to which both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should be conformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly and on due occasion? There are quite enough examples of this sort of thing. What is to be said, moreover, when it has been proved that the church is utterly compelled to make use of the words “Trinity” and “Persons”? If anyone, then, finds fault with the novelty of the words, does he not deserve to be judged as bearing the light of truth unworthily, since he is finding fault only with what renders the truth plain and clear?




John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 123–124.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jun 27, 2015)

MW said:


> This is in Rutherford's book but it is not Rutherford's view. Dr. Richard was closer to the mark when he noted this idea "is found in such medieval scholastics as Duns Scotus and Durandus." Rutherford was drawing attention to their opinion. His own view followed... Here is the translation:
> 
> 
> 
> > And I believe scripture never attributes to God a will in this sense: for so God is said to will to the same extent the sins and eternal destruction of all.




Friends,


Rev. Winzer is correct. Bobby Phillips translated part of the larger context and it does show that Rutherford was speaking of the view of Duns Scotus, that Rutherford considers such an error, and Dr. Richard mistakenly attributed it to Rutherford. This means that Dr. Richard's page and a half in his dissertation and book affirming that Rutherford held to an antecedent will in God is wrong. Here is Phillips' translation of Rutherford:


I. What John Chrysostom taught about the will of God concerning these concepts, as well as what John of Damascus taught, is manifest from their writings; and I do not deny that the Arminians insist upon passages of these same men. Yet in truth, Duns Scotus says that God does not will antecedently in Himself and directly, but rather that He wills according to antecedent motive, from which (states Durand) the result follows, though not necessarily; seeing as God antecedently wills everyone to be saved, to the extent that He gave everyone a nature capable of salvation, and did not deny them sufficient means, and God does not consequently will according His motive, but wills in Himself, for believers to be saved. Willem Hessel van Est, Dominic Bannes, and Peter Cumelius wish not to belong to such a will for God. And I believe that nowhere do the scriptures allow God a will in this sense: for thus God would be said to will the sins and destruction of everyone: for He gave to everyone a nature capable of obedience and disobedience, of salvation and destruction, indeed in the same way God would be said to will the obedience and salvation of devils, and the disobedience and destruction of good angels: for the angelic nature is capable of salvation and destruction.​

I have taken the 'Rutherford on the Antecedent Will of God' webpage down from ReformedBooksOnline, and thank Rev. Winzer for his helpful clarification. Please do forgive me for the confusion.


----------



## timfost (Jun 27, 2015)

Ruben,

Thank you. Your point is well taken and I appreciate it very much. Certainly we want to stay away from error and heresies. Unfortunately, heretics enjoy corrupting good vocabulary. This reminds me of the "catholic [small "c] church" in the Apostles Creed. I've spoken to some who were confused at the word, associating it with Catholicism. However, I am very pleased that "catholic" is used as it is repeated and expounded upon in the Heidelberg because it does not let perversions of Catholicism steal good vocabulary. I would rather spend more time clarifying and qualifying to be able to stick with biblical and historical terminology than be changing in reaction to heresies, since we often move farther from the plain language of Scripture or the Reformed fathers. Often times what is changed in our reaction against heresies shows less resemblance to scripture, which hurts us in the long run.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm not at all sure I follow you, Tim. "Catholic" as it appears in the Creed is not a Biblical term. I join you in defending its usage, but having a precise theological vocabulary in no way implies surrendering terms to others. On the whole, I suspect that heretics are somewhat more likely to co-opt the language of Scripture: hence the slogan: 'Every heretic has his text.' In actual history, technical vocabulary has been a blessing, per Calvin himself.



> Arius says that Christ is God, but mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says that Christ is one with the Father, but secretly whispers in the ears of his own partisans that He is united to the Father like other believers, although by a singular privilege.
> *Say “consubstantial” and you will tear off the mask of this turncoat, and yet you add nothing to Scripture*. Sabellius says that Father, Son, and Spirit signify no distinctions in God. Say they are three, and he will scream that you are naming three Gods. Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; *you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness*.



John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 127–128 (emphasis added).

Saying "in one word what Scripture states" is an excellent description of what technical language does. People who use it are generally trying to be clear and forthright in their statement of what they understand Scripture to teach. The disadvantage of using a term found in Scripture for a concept more precise than that of its Scriptural usage, is that it makes it easier to read the precise meaning into Scripture's more elastic usage. A sense that this was happening seems to be part of what lies behind Murray's article on "Definitive Sanctification" (where, incidentally, by use of a technical adjective Murray disambiguates a word and lists certain Biblical texts as belonging to the post-canonical category under discussion).


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> I've expressly stated that I do not know the mind of God.



You have expressly defended the idea that God has passions, and you have supported this on the supposition that Scripture presents God as having passions. In so doing you interpret Scripture in a manner which ignores its governmental and covenantal contexts.

It is not a matter of logical deduction when I state that there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning with God. This is plain Scriptural testimony. He does not change. Passions by definition are diverse, momentary, and mutable. Again, Scripture states that God is of one mind, and that what He desires He does. In supporting the idea of complexity in God you ignore these plain facts of revelation and devise a God of your own imagination.


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

py3ak said:


> I'm not at all sure I follow you, Tim. "Catholic" as it appears in the Creed is not a Biblical term. I join you in defending its usage, but having a precise theological vocabulary in no way implies surrendering terms to others. On the whole, I suspect that heretics are somewhat more likely to co-opt the language of Scripture: hence the slogan: 'Every heretic has his text.' In actual history, technical vocabulary has been a blessing, per Calvin himself.



Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I did not intend to only speak about biblical terms, which is why I said:



> I would rather spend more time clarifying and qualifying to be able to stick with biblical and *historical terminology*...



Examples: 

1. _Common Grace_: it has been hijacked by many. However, I would rather qualify the term than throw it away.

2. _Sufficiency of the Atonement_: I would rather qualify than deny its historical usage.

Yes, technical language has been a blessing, including all the adjectives associated with the five points of Dort. 

My only concern is that in relation to God's revealed and decretive will, we do not over-simplify to conform to finite reason on an admittedly complex issue that in many ways transcends the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. I would rather accept it in its complexity by faith than reduce it to what is not expressly biblical much like I accept the Trinity, though it transcends my comprehension.


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

Jonathan Edwards:



> It is objected against the absolute decrees respecting the future actions of men, and especially the unbelief of sinners, and their rejection of the gospel, that this does not consist with the *sincerity of God's calls and invitations to such sinners*; as he has willed, in his eternal secret decree, that they should never accept of those invitations. To which I answer, that there is that in God, respecting the acceptance and compliance of sinners, which God knows will never be, and which he has decreed never to cause to be, in which, *though it be not just the same with our desiring and wishing* for that which will never come to pass, yet there is nothing wanting but what would imply imperfection in the case. *There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men*. As, for instance, there is a love to holiness, absolutely considered, or an agreeableness of holiness to his nature and will; or, in other words, to his *natural inclination*. The holiness and happiness of the creature, absolutely considered, are things that he loves. These things are infinitely more agreeable to his nature than to ours. *There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates*, excepting what implies imperfection. All that is consistent with infinite knowledge, wisdom, power, self-sufficience, infinite happiness and immutability. Therefore, there is no reason that his absolute prescience, or his wise determination and ordering what is future, should hinder *his expressing this disposition of his nature*, in like manner as we are wont to express such a *disposition* in ourselves, viz. by calls and invitations, and the like.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 29, 2015)

Tim,

Instead of quoting Edwards and bolding, I suggest pointing out in your words what it is you are trying to say. After all, your contention is a hermeneutical contention. We all may read the scriptures or even historical theology, and come to different conclusions. That is the usual. I think you may agree.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 29, 2015)

Actually I see nothing in the Edwards quote that is inconsistent with what Matthew Winzer has said. In my view, God's revealed will (often termed his preceptive will) expresses his dispostion, i.e. what men ought to do and what he is disposed that men should do. I still don't see a "will of disposition" (in God) that is separate from or contrary to his "revealed will"; unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not. The latter is something which, to me, does not stand up to the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic.


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

Clarification: I believe that God has a disposition in His will, not a will of disposition.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 29, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not.



Mr. Foster and Mr. Fentiman,

What do you think of what Mr. Ellis wrote here?


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

There is a disposition in God that desires perfection and obedience because He is Holy. Since He commands all to repent, can we say that there is no desire in God for obedience to that which conforms to His law and Person? If He decrees something in His infinite wisdom contrary to the perfection that He has revealed about Himself, this is beyond my ability to comprehend. But since I'm not infinitely wise, I submit only to what He has revealed and go no further. I believe this is reverence, not confusion or compromise.


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Tim,
> 
> Instead of quoting Edwards and bolding, I suggest pointing out in your words what it is you are trying to say. After all, your contention is a hermeneutical contention. We all may read the scriptures or even historical theology, and come to different conclusions. That is the usual. I think you may agree.



Nicholas, I completely agree! Having seen statements like "if you were Reformed" and "you ignore these plain facts of revelation and devise a God of your own imagination," I think there is something greater at work than simply a different conclusion in a Reformed context based on a different hermeneutic.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 29, 2015)

I was addressing the Edwards quote in light of the subject of this thread and the OP, which is "God's will of disposition" as distinct from his decretive and preceptive (secret and revealed) will. I still feel that to speak of a third will as Sproul and others have done seems to be not only ill founded but misleading. That aside, I love R.C.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> My only concern is that in relation to God's revealed and decretive will, we do not over-simplify to conform to finite reason on an admittedly complex issue that in many ways transcends the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. I would rather accept it in its complexity by faith than reduce it to what is not expressly biblical much like I accept the Trinity, though it transcends my comprehension.



Tim, I think my concern is practically identical to yours. I think we should be very careful not to go beyond what is written. That is exactly why I find unwarranted the conclusion that God wants things he chooses not to have. The arguments I am familiar with for that position cannot be applied consistently to the Biblical text; though if you are aware of anyone arguing for a genuine desire in God to kill Moses, for instance, I would be most interested (Exodus 4:24-26).


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Actually I see nothing in the Edwards quote that is inconsistent with what Matthew Winzer has said.



Studies in the thought of Edwards give different views on the degree to which he was a follower of Lockean psychology, but to the extent Edwards utilised Lockean psychology in speaking of God I must disagree with him. The idea of "disposition" is passive and dependent, and therefore unfitting for speaking of the One who calls Himself I AM THAT I AM, which was and is and is to come.

Man proposes, God disposes; The Almighty is not disposed of! Disposition regarding created objects would make God liable to be acted upon, and therefore subject to change.

Certainly disposition is part of the revealed will, but with historic reformed theology I affirm that the revealed will is not an intrinsic will and therefore should not be regarded as a "will" in the proper sense of "volition" and "self-determination."

Also, even if one allowed disposition in God, such a disposition would include the preservation of His own majesty and honour at the expense of human happiness. The argument that God desires things which never come to pass because He is disposed towards man's happiness is anthropocentric and God-dishonouring.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 29, 2015)

Thread restored. Some posts have been edited or deleted. Folks, if you think a commenter crossed a line, use the report post feature which is the third icon to the right of "blog this post" in the lower left of each post. That is what that is for.


----------



## timfost (Jun 30, 2015)

I'll try to explain this another way:

Psalm 45:7


> You love righteousness and hate wickedness...



1. Does God desire the futurition of that which He hates?
2. Does God desire that which conforms to righteousness?
3. Is God pleased with the 1) sin itself if He decreed it or the 2) punishment of sin?
4. If 1) sin, is He pleased with what He hates?
5. If 2) punishment, is He pleased with the decree itself?
6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?

Because God is complex to us as He has multiple absolute attributes in one Essence without compromise or confusion, I prefer not entertaining or trying to wrap my head around these questions. What I know is that God accomplishes exactly what He purposes, though the details are mysterious to me. I cannot fathom harmonizing multiple absolutes, since the finite can only compromise multiple attributes if more than one is employed simultaneously. (E.g. a person cannot be both completely merciful and completely just simultaneously.)


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2015)

timfost said:


> 1. Does God desire the futurition of that which He hates?



No; He punishes it; but some are saying He desires not to punish it, but has a disposition and a desire to save it.



timfost said:


> 2. Does God desire that which conforms to righteousness?



Yes; and so He rewards it; but some are saying He desires to reward everything, good and evil, because He has a disposition towards man's happiness.



timfost said:


> 3. Is God pleased with the 1) sin itself if He decreed it or the 2) punishment of sin?



"This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory." WCF 6.1.

"The rest of mankind God was pleased ... to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." WCF 3.7.

God has ordained all things for His own glory; as the Highest End of creation He is pleased in the glory of Himself. Anything less would be idolatrous.



timfost said:


> 4. If 1) sin, is He pleased with what He hates?



He hates sin as that which is contrary to Himself; but is pleased to ordain and overrule it for His own glory, particularly the manifestation of His justice.

Let's think about it -- if God had not been pleased to ordain the existence and punishment of sin, the creature under His moral government would not have adequate means of seeing how sin is contrary to His holiness.



timfost said:


> 5. If 2) punishment, is He pleased with the decree itself?



He is pleased to display His wisdom, magnify His dominion, demonstrate His holiness, manifest His justice, preserve His goodness, and maintain His truth. The idea that God does not desire His glory is unworthy of God.



timfost said:


> 6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?



This is confused. Wrath eventuates because of disobedience and is revealed as the consequence of disobedience. It does not simply fall under something God has decreed, but is a part of what is denominated the preceptive will.



timfost said:


> I cannot fathom harmonizing multiple absolutes,



We don't have to fathom it. We are to glory in the Lord as He has revealed Himself. It is the imposition of human psychology and limitation upon God which confuses everything.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 30, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> > unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not.
> ...



Tim,

I am not sure if your post #43 addresses what I asked here above or not. If you could directly address it, even if you say something along the lines of 'I agree' or 'I can not fathom' or 'I disagree' to start out at a bare minimum, then it may give me a starting point to understand where the contention or non-contention is.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 30, 2015)

timfost said:


> Nicholas Perella said:
> 
> 
> > Tim,
> ...



So you do not think that in our approach of scripture (or historical theology) that we are to account for each others hermeneutic?

If yes, then I am not sure where we agree.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 30, 2015)

timfost said:


> 6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?



I am wondering, Tim, if you are trying to resolve: 'man's responsibility' with 'God is pleased to permit our sin'. The contention, thus what you are trying to resolve, is over the act of sin in the world and who is responsible: 'man is responsible' versus 'God is responsible'.

I do not think you are saying 'God is responsible', but you are trying to resolve what you understand, which is 'man is responsible' but 'God is pleased to permit our sin'.

Am I correct in my assessment of what you are trying to resolve? I am not saying where the resolution needs to take place, whether in you, or any other person. I am just wondering if this is where the contention is.


----------



## timfost (Jun 30, 2015)

"With this distinction in mind we are in a position to interpret properly those portions of Scripture which speak of God desiring compliance with what He has commanded. The desire has respect solely to what _ought_ to be done by man, not to what _is_ to be done." -Winzer

"Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he *wills repentance*. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God." -Calvin

With Winzer, the only way we can properly speak of God's desire in relation to God's revealed will is that God desires to obligate us to His command, not that we obey it if He didn't decree it. In contrast, Calvin states that God wills repentance, not just the obligation to repent. Winzer creates a dichotomy between God's desire for righteousness and His decree of sin. Calvin does not since God actually, according to Calvin, wills the repentance though He does not decree it.

Calvin can (and often does) therefore speak of God's revealed desire and will to save all. Winzer cannot. Winzer seeks to reconcile God's revealed will with His decree. Calvin does not.

In summary, all of us believe God perfectly accomplished all of His purposes. Winzer would, I believe, say there is mystery in _why_ God decrees sin for His glory. I would say that there is mystery in _how_ God decrees sin to His glory.

In regards to Edwards, Winzer's position does not fully take into account that God desires mercy because He is merciful. Since mercy has relation to the objects of mercy and this unto His glory, the happiness of the creature is not divorced from the glory of God.

This is the last contribution I plan on making to this conversation.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2015)

timfost said:


> With Winzer, the only way we can properly speak of God's desire in relation to God's revealed will is that God desires to obligate us to His command, not that we obey it if He didn't decree it.



This is false. If one is going to engage in polemics he would do well to properly represent the position he is opposing. God desires obedience as a thing pleasing in itself. If He did not desire obedience there would be no basis for defining or describing sin. But the event belongs to the Lord, as the Proverbs so wisely teach us.

When the decretive and preceptive are properly distinguished, and not shut up in a whirlpool of paradox, it is possible to follow Scripture and avoid assigning decretive properties to the preceptive will. Then man's moral responsibility is fully his own, and God's sovereignty to rule and overrule all things for His own glory is properly acknowledged. Within the whirlpool of paradox these things are continually confused, so that man is left irresponsible for his own actions and God is powerless to do anything about it.



timfost said:


> In contrast, Calvin states that God wills repentance, not just the obligation to repent. Winzer creates a dichotomy between God's desire for righteousness and His decree of sin. Calvin does not since God actually, according to Calvin, wills the repentance though He does not decree it.



Let us hear the man for himself.

"But men untaught of God, not understanding these things, allege that we hereby attribute to God a twofold or double will. Whereas *God is so far from being variable*, *that no shadow of such variableness appertains to Him*, *even in the most remote degree*. Hence Pighius, ignorant of the Divine nature of these deep things, thus argues: 'What else is this but making God a mocker of men, if God is represented as really not willing that which He professes to will, and as not having pleasure in that in which He in reality has pleasure?' But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be -– 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;' and, 'But that the wicked turn from his way and live' – read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. *God requires of us this conversion*, or 'turning away from our iniquity,' and in whomsoever He finds it He disappoints not such an one of the promised reward of eternal life. Wherefore, God is as much said to have pleasure in, and to will, this eternal life, as to have pleasure in the repentance; and He has pleasure in the latter, because He invites all men to it by His Word. Now all this is *in perfect harmony* with His secret and eternal counsel, by which He decreed to convert none but His own elect. None but God’s elect, therefore, ever do turn from their wickedness. And yet, the adorable God is not, on these accounts, to be considered variable or capable of change, because, as a Law-giver, He enlightens all men with the external doctrine of conditional life. In this primary manner He calls, or invites, all men unto eternal life. But, in the latter case, He brings unto eternal life those whom He willed according to His eternal purpose, regenerating by His Spirit, as an eternal Father, His own children only."

He clearly distinguished thing and event, and thereby avoided bringing the wills of God into collision and confusion.



timfost said:


> In regards to Edwards, Winzer's position does not fully take into account that God desires mercy because He is merciful. Since mercy has relation to the objects of mercy and this unto His glory, the happiness of the creature is not divorced from the glory of God.



Thankfully God is bigger than this and wisely demonstrates His glory in the misery of the impenitent wicked. Psalm 37:28, "For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off."


----------

