# John Piper on the Sovereign/Moral Will of God



## solifide

John Piper preaches that God acts through a sovereign and a moral will, but they are still one will...at least I think that is the best way of putting it? What is everyone's thoughts on the topic?


----------



## KMK

I understand this is a good book on the subject: http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/SimpleOverview.htm

I intend to get around to it.


----------



## Barnpreacher

solifide said:


> John Piper preaches that God acts through a sovereign and a moral will, but they are still one will...at least I think that is the best way of putting it? What is everyone's thoughts on the topic?



From the best I can ascertain Pipers' teaching on this subject is not a very popular one on the Purtian Board.

Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Barnpreacher

Within Pipers' "Two Wills" article he quotes Edwards,



> "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."


----------



## Amazing Grace

Barnpreacher said:


> Within Pipers' "Two Wills" article he quotes Edwards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."
Click to expand...


And the Arminian is exactly correct in this assesment against a jekyl and hyde god


----------



## larryjf

God has 1 will, not 2.
The difference is in the object that His one will is directed at.

So when His will is directed towards the individual, following the moral law brings God more glory, so His will is for the individual to submit to Him.

When His will is directed towards the cumulative human race, when some are called to follow Him and others are not it brings Him more glory...because His justice, mercy, etc. are revealed, so His will for the cumulative human race is that some would perish.


----------



## MW

larryjf said:


> God has 1 will, not 2.
> The difference is in the object that His one will is directed at.



This doesn't work. God's decree concerns individuals and His moral demands are universal.

The usual way they are distinguished without introducing contrariety into the will of God is to acknowledge the simple point that the word "will" is used in two different ways. In one sense He is said to will something volitionally. This is God's will properly speaking. "God works all things after the counsel of His own will." There is also the extended use of the word "will" when a certain course of action is said to be the will of God. "This is the will of God concerning you, even your sanctification." In this latter sense the word "will" is being used morally, not volitionally. The two words may be used without contradiction or confusion if we keep in mind that the secret will refers to what _shall_ be and the revealed will concerns what _should_ be. See Shorter Catechism, answers 7 and 39.


----------



## danmpem

solifide said:


> John Piper preaches that God acts through a sovereign and a moral will, but they are still one will...at least I think that is the best way of putting it? What is everyone's thoughts on the topic?



That is exactly right; they are still one will. The "two wills" language is derived from the questions of people who are first exposed to these ideas. They may say something like "These two ideas in the Bible portray God's will, but they are so different to me. Does this mean that God has _two wills_?"

I've read a lot of Piper's books, and I don't entirely understand why ideas such as the two wills of God are not very welcome. The literature produced by John Piper has been the most defining and edifying extra-biblical material, save A.W. Pink, on the sovereignty of God in my life as a Christian. The very first exposure I ever had to writings on the providence of God was chapter 1 of Desiring God. I was convinced then and there.

A couple years later, when I read the appendix to The Pleasure of God (where the infamous "Two Wills" essay is located, and, thus, should be read and critiqued in the context of the whole book), I learned even more about the non-linearity of the will of God. And I think that's just it - God's will is very non-linear. For those of us who affirm the sovereignty of God in the Reformed sense, we can sometimes fall into the trap of saying "my theology does not allow for God to do that" when it comes to the will of God, though I do not mean to imply that is happening here. I am mainly thinking of some kinds of Calvinist-folk who look at Arminians and say "They put God in a box!" And then what do those Calvinists do? They put God in a bigger box. I don't see any reason why God does not have a 'sovereign will' and a 'moral will' which are unified and really the same will.


----------



## MW

danmpem said:


> I don't see any reason why God does not have a 'sovereign will' and a 'moral will' which are unified and really the same will.



Because they are not the same will. The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term. By "unifying" them confusion is inevitably created. People start to speak of God "willing" things to happen in relation to moral demands He makes on His creatures. Such confusion of language and thought only serves to present God as impotent to accomplish His pleasure.


----------



## larryjf

armourbearer said:


> The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term.



Could you explain that a little further...How is God's moral will not His will in the proper sense?


----------



## larryjf

Jonathan Edwards...


> God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality.


----------



## toddpedlar

larryjf said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain that a little further...How is God's moral will not His will in the proper sense?
Click to expand...


If I may interject here, what I believe Rev. Winzer is distinguishing is "will" (that which God desires to come to pass" and what is called "moral will" in this discussion. When God wills something, it happens, period. God's "moral will" (or better, as far as I'm concerned, His Law, Commands and Precepts) is not properly His "will" because if it were, then He'd be the most impotent of God's. God clearly "wills" things that are contrary to His "moral will" - the case of Christ's crucifixion the prime example.


----------



## larryjf

armourbearer said:


> "This is the will of God concerning you, even your sanctification." In this latter sense the word "will" is being used morally, not volitionally.



I'm not so sure that i agree with that.
I think God's "volitional" will is that the elect are sanctified.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any reason why God does not have a 'sovereign will' and a 'moral will' which are unified and really the same will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are not the same will. The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term. By "unifying" them confusion is inevitably created. People start to speak of God "willing" things to happen in relation to moral demands He makes on His creatures. Such confusion of language and thought only serves to present God as impotent to accomplish His pleasure.
Click to expand...


Exactly so. This is the truly monstrous thing about Arminian theology. I'm not sure if I'm more repulsed by the theology of the Arminian who places human libertine free will in a place where choices are stripped of their morality because they are completely arbitrary and a God who has no control over them or by the Arminian who doesn't want to say he's an Open Theist but then asks questions as if he is.

The thing about the criticisms of God's Sovereignty from the Arminian is that they're always one-sided. That is, they typically will simply ask questions like: "How could a loving God be sovereign over something like a mother drowning her three children in a bath tub?" They're always intended to evoke an emotional response out of the hearer to think, in the abstract, only of the fact that God's love must mean that all the bad stuff in the world has no connection whatsoever to His control. What they never provide, however, is how their god (small g intended) was either impotent to prevent it or didn't know it was going to happen.

I'd wonder aloud to someone like that whether I should trust the Scriptures any more. If God isn't powerful enough to prevent such an act then He isn't powerful enough to bring anything He has promised to pass. If He didn't know it would happen then anything promised in the past became of no effect the moment God began learning new things about how things would really turn out after He inspired the New Testament authors.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

toddpedlar said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain that a little further...How is God's moral will not His will in the proper sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may interject here, what I believe Rev. Winzer is distinguishing is "will" (that which God desires to come to pass" and what is called "moral will" in this discussion. When God wills something, it happens, period. God's "moral will" (or better, as far as I'm concerned, His Law, Commands and Precepts) is not properly His "will" because if it were, then He'd be the most impotent of God's. God clearly "wills" things that are contrary to His "moral will" - the case of Christ's crucifixion the prime example.
Click to expand...


Right. This must be distinguished because many people have a facile understanding of such things. If you don't then when something happens that God has willed not to occur (in the Scriptures) then people conclude that God never wanted it to happen and could, therefore, never decree it.


----------



## larryjf

toddpedlar said:


> If I may interject here, what I believe Rev. Winzer is distinguishing is "will" (that which God desires to come to pass" and what is called "moral will" in this discussion. When God wills something, it happens, period. God's "moral will" (or better, as far as I'm concerned, His Law, Commands and Precepts) is not properly His "will" because if it were, then He'd be the most impotent of God's. God clearly "wills" things that are contrary to His "moral will" - the case of Christ's crucifixion the prime example.



Then should we call His moral will "will" at all?

I don't subscribe to the notion that God wills things contrary to His moral will. God's overarching purpose is not that all things be moral, but that all things bring Him glory. So that God's "volitional" will has as its object the universal scope, while God's "moral" will has as its object the individual scope. This goes back to my earlier post.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

larryjf said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may interject here, what I believe Rev. Winzer is distinguishing is "will" (that which God desires to come to pass" and what is called "moral will" in this discussion. When God wills something, it happens, period. God's "moral will" (or better, as far as I'm concerned, His Law, Commands and Precepts) is not properly His "will" because if it were, then He'd be the most impotent of God's. God clearly "wills" things that are contrary to His "moral will" - the case of Christ's crucifixion the prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then should we call His moral will "will" at all?
> 
> I don't subscribe to the notion that God wills things contrary to His moral will. God's overarching purpose is not that all things be moral, but that all things bring Him glory. So that God's "volitional" will has as its object the universal scope, while God's "moral" will has as its object the individual scope. This goes back to my earlier post.
Click to expand...


You seem to imply that God gave the Law to man with no real desire on His part that they obey it and that His sovereignty over their choices really does make His judging of their violations of His Law simply Him punishing them for something He wanted them to do to begin with. I have a real problem with conflating everything together to make secondary causality completely inconsequential.


----------



## larryjf

SemperFideles said:


> You seem to imply that God gave the Law to man with no real desire on His part that they obey it and that His sovereignty over their choices really does make His judging of their violations of His Law simply Him punishing them for something He wanted them to do to begin with. I have a real problem with conflating everything together to make secondary causality completely inconsequential.



No, that's not what i'm saying.
I'm saying that His one will has a different aspect depending on what object it is pertaining to...whether individual or universal.

Individually His will is that we obey His commands.
Universally His will is that not all obey His commands.
The universal object takes priority over the individual, so it would be what you would consider His "volitional" will.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

So you say he has two aspects to His will. I think it's a semantic issue probably but I'm kind of busy today so I'll have to let others discuss the nuances of why one way of saying things is superior to the other if everyone is saying the same thing.


----------



## Neogillist

You guys are a somewhat mistaken concerning the Arminian view of God's will. Well, perhaps you were referring to a view held by various ignorant evangelical pastors. Arminians do actually identify two sides to God's will. They will typically shy away from calling the sovereign aspect "God's sovereign will", however, preferring to opt for the term "God's permissive will." Indeed, many Calvinists actually use the terms "sovereign will" and "permissive will" interchangeably, although Arminians do not understand God's "permissive will" in the same way as Calvinists. For Arminians, God permits many things to happen that grieve Him, but which He could have very well prevented. God lets these things happen in the sense that he lets men have their way, by choosing not to interfere with their choices. Thus, they do not understand God's sovereign will as a will of decree, since many of them deny the concept of decrees altogether. They may also accept the concept of a "general will," and a "specific will", for one's life. No matter what you what to call it, there is no way around it; Scriptures do speak of God's will in two ways. Just look at the following verses, and try to identify which aspect of God's will they refer to:

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:47"
_Obviously moral will is in view here._

"10Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10."

_I guess here both moral and sovereign will are in view._

"19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For(A) who can resist his will? Romans 9:19"

_Obviously referring to God's will of decree._

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat. 7:21"

_I'll let you guess these other ones._

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Mat. 12:50."

"11In him we have obtained(A) an inheritance,(B) having been predestined(C) according to the purpose of him who works all things according to(D) the counsel of his will, ... Eph. 1:11"

The concept of God's will as being two-sided is so entrenched throughout Scriptures that no Arminians or Calvinists or whoever can deny it. If we do not maintain it, we make Scripture contradicts itself. It may be a paradox or a duality, but I'm a physicist, and I can tell you the physical world is filled with dualities. Just take the particle/wave duality for instance. It's a good thing to try to make sense out of these things, but let's not over do it, because even the physical world is not totally logical.


----------



## cih1355

The commands that God gave to people.

What God guarantees will come to pass.

Can both of the above be called God's will?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Neogillist said:


> You guys are a somewhat mistaken concerning the Arminian view of God's will. Well, perhaps you were referring to a view held by various ignorant evangelical pastors. Arminians do actually identify two sides to God's will. They will typically shy away from calling the sovereign aspect "God's sovereign will", however, preferring to opt for the term "God's permissive will." Indeed, many Calvinists actually use the terms "sovereign will" and "permissive will" interchangeably, although Arminians do not understand God's "permissive will" in the same way as Calvinists. For Arminians, God permits many things to happen that grieve Him, but which He could have very well prevented. God lets these things happen in the sense that he lets men have their way, by choosing not to interfere with their choices. Thus, they do not understand God's sovereign will as a will of decree, since many of them deny the concept of decrees altogether. They may also accept the concept of a "general will," and a "specific will", for one's life. No matter what you what to call it, there is no way around it; Scriptures do speak of God's will in two ways.


There is hardly a monolithic Arminian view of God's will. I know you wrote a paper on the subject but it is not the penultimate expression of what has been referred to historically as Arminian. I was referring primarily in the one sense to the views that Jonathan Edwards identified as Arminian (and others) who argue for a view of human choice as a neutral act unaffected by the effects of the Fall. In their view, God not only doesn't interfere with their decisions but their decisions are unaffected by any disposition whatsoever. They are choices without a choice.


----------



## danmpem

Hmm, after repeatedly reading the posts following my own, I am now left somewhat confused. I think that it is mostly because I am not using the words the same way as the others here, like "unified" and "will".

(I do no live in a very Calvinistic community of Christians at _all_, so any monergism I take in is from books, and if I miss a point in a book, then I've probably missed it altogether). That was my way of saying "thank you" to you all for being so patient with me. 

I guess my question is, if there is distinction between the moral will and the sovereign will of God, then why would a Calvinist be opposed to what Piper wrote in the "Two Wills" essay? Almost everything I've read on this thread seems to support what he wrote. Could someone help me understand what I have missed?

Thank you!


----------



## Amazing Grace

danmpem said:


> Hmm, after repeatedly reading the posts following my own, I am now left somewhat confused. I think that it is mostly because I am not using the words the same way as the others here, like "unified" and "will".
> 
> (I do no live in a very Calvinistic community of Christians at _all_, so any monergism I take in is from books, and if I miss a point in a book, then I've probably missed it altogether). That was my way of saying "thank you" to you all for being so patient with me.
> 
> I guess my question is, if there is distinction between the moral will and the sovereign will of God, then why would a Calvinist be opposed to what Piper wrote in the "Two Wills" essay? Almost everything I've read on this thread seems to support what he wrote. Could someone help me understand what I have missed?
> 
> Thank you!





First off, God has one will period. There is no secret and revealed will, meanign 2 different contradictory wills. He is completely unified. When we see the words secret and revealed, or whatever else one calls them, we can never conclude that these 2 work in opposition of each other. If so, we worship a malicious God. There is ONE will, regardless if it is revealed or kept to HImself alone. 

From translating Matthew's words in this thread, I think I diagree with him.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

As I recall, Turretin, as well as Edwards, agrees with the distinction between the Secret and Revealed will, which is also called the Decretive and Preceptive will. These do not mean two contradictory wills. Quoting Turretin:



> He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, if it is understood of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the will of decree and yet does not will it; or by the will of precept and yet does not will it). But if it refers to diverse wills, the reasoning does not equally hold good. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, there is no simulation or hypocrisy here (as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by *the will of precept and good pleasure *(euarestias), but not by the *will of decree*. For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person. _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, topic XV, question II, para. XV.



The problem (in my mind) comes when one implicitly or explicitly introduces a third aspect of God's will, which has been termed by some as His desiderative will (or will of desire) -- somehow to be distinguished from his sovereign decretive (volitional) will and his preceptive will (what men ought to do). Piper seems to do this when he suggests that God volitionally desires the saving of the reprobate but this is trumped by a higher desire to manifest his glory by actually saving only some. He puts it this way:



> God's expression of pity and his entreaties have heart in them. 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. In his great and mysterious heart there are kinds of longings and desires that are real— they tell us something true about his character. Yet *not all of these longings govern God's actions*. He is governed by the depth of his wisdom expressed through a plan that no ordinary human deliberation would ever conceive (Romans 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 2:9). There are holy and just reasons for why the affections of God's heart have the nature and intensity and proportion that they do. (Piper, _Are There Two Wills in God_?)


This seems to leave a God who is (to some extent) eternally frustrated -- since some of his "longings" are not realized. I seem to remember Scripture saying that God does what He desires, and whatever He desires He does. So that's where I am having a little trouble.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> This seems to leave a God who is (to some extent) eternally frustrated -- since some of his "longings" are not realized. I seem to remember Scripture saying that God does what He desires, and whatever He desires He does. So that's where I am having a little trouble.



I suppose we just have to accept that some things cannot be reconciled with human reason, as God's thoughts are not our thouights.


----------



## KMK

Rev McMahon had this to way in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/c-hodge-god-s-will-25368/





> Not, this is not confusing the issue. It does not add something foreign. These are two manner of looking at two various aspects of the will ACTED.
> 
> Decreetive vs. Preceptive. (i.e. God's eternal counsel vs. God's Word as stated.)
> 
> Decreetive vs. Perceptive. (i.e. God's actions as a result of His eternal counsel after the fact, vs. what we see )i.e. perceive) as a result of day to day living.)
> 
> Two different strata in the line of thinking on the Word based information and the practical side of seeing those things worked out.
> 
> See how easy it is to dismiss things as "foreign" without thinking through it!
> Careful careful!
> 
> Both these sets of ideas are extremely important in understanding the continuum of God's decree and actions.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Gomarus said:


> The problem (in my mind) comes when one implicitly or explicitly introduces a third aspect of God's will, which has been termed by some as His desiderative will (or will of desire) -- somehow to be distinguished from his sovereign decretive (volitional) will and his preceptive will (what men ought to do). Piper seems to do this when he suggests that God volitionally desires the saving of the reprobate but this is trumped by a higher desire to manifest his glory by actually saving only some. He puts it this way:
> 
> 
> This seems to leave a God who is (to some extent) eternally frustrated -- since some of his "longings" are not realized. I seem to remember Scripture saying that God does what He desires, and whatever He desires He does. So that's where I am having a little trouble.



This is a tremendous righteouss concern brother. If this so called 'revealed' will is something of a phantom, with no power attached to it, then we are most miserable. God provides what He requires. It all points to Christ. So in effect, He knew His law could not be, nor would be accomplished by man, hence He sent His eternal son from the foundations of the world. All we have is from and through Christ alone. Therefore this 'will of command' or again whatever one calls it, was never intended no decreed to be kept by man. 

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19*Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?*

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 



We are so afraid of offending God by asking this question. The invention of a double will theory was only done to relieve the perceived tension explained in Romans 9. Then Deut 29;29 becomes the precursor for this fabrication. It ONLY says the secret things, not the secret will. All this means is Moses was inspired to write that certain 'things' in God's mind have not been revealed. It has nothing to do with a different or a distinct will. This is the root of the whole discussion. He commands me to do something He never gave me the power to do, yet I am accountable? I answer YES and AMEN!!! Hence we have our blessed Savior..


----------



## regener8ed

Amazing Grace said:


> He commands me to do something He never gave me the power to do, yet I am accountable? I amswer YES and AMEN!!! Hence we have our blessed Savior..



AMEN!! Praise Him.


----------



## Amazing Grace

regener8ed said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> He commands me to do something He never gave me the power to do, yet I am accountable? I answer YES and AMEN!!! Hence we have our blessed Savior..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMEN!! Praise Him.
Click to expand...


It is a glorious thought is it not...It brings me such comfort and joy that God does not leave His children without a remedy to this quandry. I read His commands and melt into a puddle of sin, unable to conform to His will on my terms of satisfaction. The reason behind His 'plan' is to force His children to look to Christ ALONE, not the command. The double will theory puts to much emphasis on man and not on Christ. Once I came to this realization, the burden of command disappeared and made me recite the HC Q & A #1 with power:Lord's Day 1
Q & A 1

Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own,^1
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—^2
to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.^3

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,^4
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.^5
He also watches over me in such a way^6
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven:^7
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.^8

Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life^9
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.^10


----------



## MW

larryjf said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "moral will" is not God's will in the proper sense of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain that a little further...How is God's moral will not His will in the proper sense?
Click to expand...


To "will" something, in the proper sense of the term, is to decide this or that shall happen. A "moral will" is merely a standard of action imposed upon others and indicates nothing as to what the person wills as to the falling out of events. The Righteous One commands all men everywhere to repent. That is their moral obligation. This is what they _should_ do. He also decrees that only certain men shall repent and others shall be hardened. THis is what they _shall_ do. That is His will in the proper sense of the term.


----------



## larryjf

armourbearer said:


> To "will" something, in the proper sense of the term, is to decide this or that shall happen. A "moral will" is merely a standard of action imposed upon others and indicates nothing as to what the person wills as to the falling out of events. The Righteous One commands all men everywhere to repent. That is their moral obligation. This is what they _should_ do. He also decrees that only certain men shall repent and others shall be hardened. THis is what they _shall_ do. That is His will in the proper sense of the term.



So then God's true will is only His decretive will...the other is not His will, but His moral standards?

Certainly we should only use words in their proper sense when formulating theological ideas.


----------



## MW

danmpem said:


> I guess my question is, if there is distinction between the moral will and the sovereign will of God, then why would a Calvinist be opposed to what Piper wrote in the "Two Wills" essay? Almost everything I've read on this thread seems to support what he wrote. Could someone help me understand what I have missed?



I don't see any difficulty in using the language of two wills as long as we are careful to note that we are using the word "will" in two different senses. This is legitimate because Scripture does so. The difficulty arises when some authors use the language of distinct wills and interpret it in a way which differs from the traditional language. In Piper's case there is a tendency to import "volitional" ideas into the moral will of God. For example, in his essay in "The Grace of God," vol. 1, p. 109, he speaks of the two wills as wills "to save." He speaks of "the will of God to save all," and refers to "what God would like to see happen" in distinction from "what he actually does will to happen," p. 110. It is this particular use of the "revealed will" which is out of accord with traditional reformed thought.

The reformed doctrine of God is undermined by importing a volitional sense into the revealed will of God.

First, it undermines His perfect blessedness. Perfect happiness is the fulfilment of all one desires. In God's presence is fulness of joy, Ps. 16:11. The teaching that God desires things to happen which shall never come to pass effectively creates a less than perfectly blessed God.

Secondly, it undermines His immutability. God is supposed to desire to save all. What happens when one whom He desired to save dies in his sins and is cast into eternal punishment? Does God still desire to save them? Of course not, otherwise He would provide means for their salvation. Well then, the inevitable conclusion is that God changes the desires He has for individuals. One moment He desires the salvation of an individual, and the next moment He ceases to desire their salvation.

Thirdly, it undermines the all-conquering nature of God's love. What are we to do with the unswerving persuasion of the apostle Paul that there is nothing which can separate from the love of God? We are told that God loves men who shall never be saved. The only solution is either to say that Paul omitted the presupposed condition of human will, or that Paul was speaking about a saving love of God in distinction from a non-saving love. In either case the assurance which Paul was seeking to impart to his readers is no assurance at all. If there is the condition of human will, then the human will might frustrate God's purpose of love and bring the individual to ruin. If Paul was speaking of a saving love in distinction from a non-saving love, how does the reader know which love God has for him? In either case the apostle's statement is nullified and the believer left unassured as to whether all things do truly work together for his good.

There are many other aspects of reformed theology which is undermined by the teaching that God has unfulfilled desires; but I think these three suffice to show how detrimental this teaching would be to the reformed system if it were adopted and applied.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> I don't see any difficulty in using the language of two wills as long as we are careful to note that we are using the word "will" in two different senses. *This is legitimate because Scripture does so*.



This is an excellent point!


----------



## larryjf

It is quite a blessing to be able to sit under the tutelage of Rev. Winzer here at the Puritanboard.
He has both corrected me and refined my theology on a number of topics...and always in humility.
Thank you Rev. Winzer.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Matthew: Thank you for your post #33. Now I see we do agree.


----------



## solifide

thanks for all of the great responses!


----------



## KMK

larryjf said:


> It is quite a blessing to be able to sit under the tutelage of Rev. Winzer here at the Puritanboard.
> He has both corrected me and refined my theology on a number of topics...and always in humility.
> Thank you Rev. Winzer.


----------

