# Questions about Low Calvinism and Lapsarianism



## Confessor (Jun 4, 2008)

1. Does God have two wills? I thought this must be necessary, because I don't know how else to explain that God could desire that we not murder but simultaneously allow a murder to occur. I thought the "two-wills" explanation was perfect, but then I seemed to infer from other writings on this forum that it was a dismissed notion, and an obvious one at that.

2. Is saving faith a duty? I don't see why not, for I view the skeletal method of salvation as following an earthly analogy: if I were to wrong someone by, say, stealing something from him, and if I were sincerely sorry and expressed my apologies to him, and if he were forgiving, then I would be forgiven of my action. Similarly, if I wrong God by willfully rebelling, or sinning, against Him, then it can be forgiven if I "apologize" to Him and Him alone. (I know there's tons more to salvation than my analogy implies, but I believe it still follows such a structure.) Thus, if we are all obliged to apologize to a person we wrong, then we are all obliged to "apologize" to our Creator whom we have wronged. We have a duty to have faith in Him. The objection to this that I have encountered is that, since the totally depraved cannot have saving faith, then they should not be obliged to have saving faith. I think this fails, however, just as we are obliged to be perfect (Matthew 5:48), yet none of us are (Romans 3:23). The inability to commit an action does not imply the lack of an obligation to do it.

3. Does not God have universal love for mankind? I have not done much study on this, but it seems necessary. Although God may love the reprobate less than the elect, He may still possess the love which would be expected from an omnibenevolent deity for His creation. The objection I have seen against this is that God loved Jacob but hated Esau (Romans 9:13), and therefore He hates people. However, my rebuttal to this is that "hate" only implies a lesser love, just as when Jesus said that we must hate our families and our own lives (Luke 14:26).

4. I see big problems with each form of lapsarianism. In infra, the Fall precedes election, which would seem to make God decree the Fall without a purpose in mind. If God have no reason to logically decree the Fall (because election had not yet been decreed), then it would not have logically preceded election. In supra, election precedes the Fall, which seems just as impossible: in order to elect some, God would first have to at least conceive of a state from which to be elected. The whole concept of electing some without a Fall is just nonsense. I have concluded from this that, since neither the Fall or election can logically precede each other, they must have been simultaneous. This seems to be a doctrine in error, so I request some help on this.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 5, 2008)

Good questions. However, they have all been hashed-through on previous threads -- each question requiring some discussion. While you wait for others to jump in with summary answers, it might help if you searched the forums. 

I personally would consult my favorite Systematic Theology books for discussion of these issues.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 5, 2008)

packabacka said:


> 1. Does God have two wills?



No, but because our minds are so finite we are forced to distinguish between God's will of command and God's will of decree.



packabacka said:


> 2. Is saving faith a duty?



Yes.



packabacka said:


> 3. Does not God have universal love for mankind?



God only loves the elect.


----------



## Neogillist (Jun 5, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Does God have two wills?
> ...



If an Arminian asks you how God can require saving faith from people when they are unable to exercise it, you may reply that under the covenant of works, prior to the fall of mankind, there was nothing that could prevent Adam from believing in the second head of the trinity and obeying the moral law perfectly. Now although through the fall man lost both of these abilities, God has not lost His authority to require from man what he owes Him. Consequently man is still responsible to repent and believe. Besides, the reprobates still have an ability to exercise a historical faith in Christ and an outward, legal repentance; yet many are too hardened to do this little bit that they are still able to do through God's common grace.

In regard to God's universal love, low calvinists will say yes, high calvinists will say no. It may be said that God loves all his creatures as creatures, and that he is good to all, even the worse of devils (as Jesus allowed a legion to go into a herd of pigs), and even the worse of reprobates (like king Ahab). Jesus also loved the rich young ruler, but this does not mean that God the Father loved them with an everlasting love and had purposed to save them.

Beside, when semi-Pelagians/Arminians use John 3:16 to teach that God loves everybody soooo muchhhh, they err since they are merely making an emotional appeal to people. Their approach basically appeals to man's self-love and self-worth and fails to deal with man's sinfulness. You should read Jonathan Edwards "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." It's an excellent classic which shows how people can mislead themselves in hypocrisy over a conversion experience, and think that they are saved when they totally aren't.


----------



## Neogillist (Jun 5, 2008)

packabacka said:


> 1. Does God have two wills? I thought this must be necessary, because I don't know how else to explain that God could desire that we not murder but simultaneously allow a murder to occur. I thought the "two-wills" explanation was perfect, but then I seemed to infer from other writings on this forum that it was a dismissed notion, and an obvious one at that.
> 
> 2. Is saving faith a duty? I don't see why not, for I view the skeletal method of salvation as following an earthly analogy: if I were to wrong someone by, say, stealing something from him, and if I were sincerely sorry and expressed my apologies to him, and if he were forgiving, then I would be forgiven of my action. Similarly, if I wrong God by willfully rebelling, or sinning, against Him, then it can be forgiven if I "apologize" to Him and Him alone. (I know there's tons more to salvation than my analogy implies, but I believe it still follows such a structure.) Thus, if we are all obliged to apologize to a person we wrong, then we are all obliged to "apologize" to our Creator whom we have wronged. We have a duty to have faith in Him. The objection to this that I have encountered is that, since the totally depraved cannot have saving faith, then they should not be obliged to have saving faith. I think this fails, however, just as we are obliged to be perfect (Matthew 5:48), yet none of us are (Romans 3:23). The inability to commit an action does not imply the lack of an obligation to do it.
> 
> ...



I think you misunderstand both types of lapsarianism. Neither systems teach that God had one idea in mind before the next; whether he had in mind to first create man and secondly to allow the fall and so on, but rather each system attempts to order the decrees in a logical fashion. That is, did God elect some men considering them as fallen beings, or as neutral beings? If you say that God elects some man from a sinful, fallen mass of mankind (called the corrupt mass), with consideration to sinfulness but without consideration good deeds, then you are infra. If you say that God elects from a "pure mass of mankind" without consideration to either good or evil deeds, (thus viewing man as a neutral being), then you are supra. I personally lean more towards the infra view, but both are valuable and acceptable view. However, Roman Catholicism says that God elects with consideration to both good and evil deeds, and Arminianism teaches that God elects with consideration to forseen faith, which in itself is a good deed. So you see that either infra or supralapsarianism are biblical, but the other two views are not.


----------



## Confessor (Jun 6, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> If an Arminian asks you how God can require saving faith from people when they are unable to exercise it, you may reply that under the covenant of works, prior to the fall of mankind, there was nothing that could prevent Adam from believing in the second head of the trinity and obeying the moral law perfectly. Now although through the fall man lost both of these abilities, God has not lost His authority to require from man what he owes Him. Consequently man is still responsible to repent and believe. Besides, the reprobates still have an ability to exercise a historical faith in Christ and an outward, legal repentance; yet many are too hardened to do this little bit that they are still able to do through God's common grace.







> In regard to God's universal love, low calvinists will say yes, high calvinists will say no. It may be said that God loves all his creatures as creatures, and that he is good to all, even the worse of devils (as Jesus allowed a legion to go into a herd of pigs), and even the worse of reprobates (like king Ahab). Jesus also loved the rich young ruler, but this does not mean that God the Father loved them with an everlasting love and had purposed to save them.



For the record, when I say that I believe that God loves everybody, I don't mean necessarily that He wants all to come to repentance (although, I haven't ruled that out; I still need to do some work to refine that part of my beliefs). Further, I never really thought about this until you brought up the distinction between the Father's love and Jesus' love, but it is theologically tenable for the Father and the Son to have different feelings toward the same object?



> Beside, when semi-Pelagians/Arminians use John 3:16 to teach that God loves everybody soooo muchhhh, they err since they are merely making an emotional appeal to people. Their approach basically appeals to man's self-love and self-worth and fails to deal with man's sinfulness. You should read Jonathan Edwards "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." It's an excellent classic which shows how people can mislead themselves in hypocrisy over a conversion experience, and think that they are saved when they totally aren't.



I remember doing an exegesis on the passage and really coming to terms with the "entire world" bit. I really need to write these things down...  Thanks for the book rec though; I'll add that to my list.



Neogillist said:


> I think you misunderstand both types of lapsarianism. Neither systems teach that God had one idea in mind before the next; whether he had in mind to first create man and secondly to allow the fall and so on, but rather each system attempts to order the decrees in a logical fashion. That is, did God elect some men considering them as fallen beings, or as neutral beings? If you say that God elects some man from a sinful, fallen mass of mankind (called the corrupt mass), with consideration to sinfulness but without consideration good deeds, then you are infra. If you say that God elects from a "pure mass of mankind" without consideration to either good or evil deeds, (thus viewing man as a neutral being), then you are supra. I personally lean more towards the infra view, but both are valuable and acceptable view. However, Roman Catholicism says that God elects with consideration to both good and evil deeds, and Arminianism teaches that God elects with consideration to forseen faith, which in itself is a good deed. So you see that either infra or supralapsarianism are biblical, but the other two views are not.



Now that's what I was wanting to hear! Thanks for correcting me. I figured that I had not just easily dismissed such an essential part of biblical doctrine...


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 6, 2008)

> Does God have two wills? I thought this must be necessary, because I don't know how else to explain that God could desire that we not murder but simultaneously allow a murder to occur. I thought the "two-wills" explanation was perfect, but then I seemed to infer from other writings on this forum that it was a dismissed notion, and an obvious one at that.



When people say that God has two wills, they are using the word, "will" in two different senses.

I wouldn't use the expression, "God has two wills", because this can cause people to misunderstand me. That sounds like God plans one thing and then plans something else that is contrary to that plan or it sounds like that God is double-minded. I prefer to say that God gives commandments and God ordains things.


----------



## MOSES (Jun 6, 2008)

packabacka said:


> 1. Does God have two wills?



I think that the text book answer is "yes"

Does God have two "decreetive" wills, no.

Doe God have two "preceptive" wills, no.

But...God has a "preceptive" will and a "decreetive" will...so yes, that is two wills.

The decreetive is God's eternal decrees, the preceptive is God's "precepts" or commands that he desires man to obey.


----------



## Houston E. (Jun 6, 2008)

> Does God have two wills? I thought this must be necessary, because I don't know how else to explain that God could desire that we not murder but simultaneously allow a murder to occur.


This would imply multiple plans. There is only one plan, perfectly designed by our Heavenly Father. Packabacka, have you settled in your mind with the scriptural/reformed view of God and His sovereignty? 

Blessings!


----------



## Confessor (Jun 6, 2008)

MOSES said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Does God have two wills?
> ...



Yeah, that's the view that I held, but then it seemed that this view was...dismissed. I was looking for perhaps a better explanation.



Houston E. said:


> This would imply multiple plans. There is only one plan, perfectly designed by our Heavenly Father. Packabacka, have you settled in your mind with the scriptural/reformed view of God and His sovereignty?
> 
> Blessings!



Do you think it'd be more accurate to say that God has one will with two aspects? Also, I believe that every single event is explicitly permitted/ordained by God (which I'm fairly certain is the reformed view).


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 6, 2008)

packabacka said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> > packabacka said:
> ...



You can say that the word, "will", has two different meanings. One meaning of the word, "will", could be "command". Another meaning of the word, "will", could be "ordain".


----------



## Confessor (Jun 7, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> You can say that the word, "will", has two different meanings. One meaning of the word, "will", could be "command". Another meaning of the word, "will", could be "ordain".



So does no one disagree when I say that God has a preceptive and a decretive will, or at least a twofold will? I remember reading elsewhere on this forum that classified Low Calvinists as adherents to the fact that God has two wills, followed by several affirmations of High Calvinism. Does this imply that these people reject the notion of two wills?

I'm just a little confused here, because I thought the "two wills" belief was basically universal in Reformed theology.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 7, 2008)

> So does no one disagree when I say that God has a preceptive and a decretive will, or at least a twofold will?



No, but that's not where the issue lies.

I've said this before -- Once you go beyond the distinction between Decretive and Preceptive (or Secret and Revealed) will, properly discerned and defined, you move beyond traditional Reformed theology. You will now find references to what is in effect God's _desiderative will_ (will of desire) -- as distinct or in addition to the Decretive/Preceptive understanding.

Here's the rub: A volitional _will of desire_ is not properly part of God's preceptive will, and when it is somehow contrasted with his _will of decree_ it leads to unbiblical concepts and clear contradictions regarding God's will. E.g. when it is said that God sincerely _desires_ the salvation of all, yet has decreed to save only some, we are left with a God who is eternally frustrated since some of His desires are left unfulfilled.

See this ongoing thread in the Exegetical Forum. It may help:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/2-wills-god-33723/

Matthew Winzer has also specifically addressed this in his Review of Murray on the Free Offer, here:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-10&12.pdf


----------

