# Universal will of salvation destroys mercy



## MW (May 11, 2014)

David Clarkson (Select Works, 420-421):

They ascribe to him a will of universal salvation; when they discern it can be no other than a mere velleity, an incomplete intention, a weak, ineffectual desire, a faint and fruitless wishing of such general happiness, when he knows it will never be effected, and is resolved not to take the course to effect it. This is such a mercy, as jostles out and clashes with his other perfections, and is inconsistent with his knowledge, power, sincerity, wisdom, blessedness, and mercy itself in the true notion of it.

With his knowledge; for who will desire and design that, which he knows will never be effected? With his power; for who will not effect that, which he really intends and designs, if he be able? With his sincerity; for what ingenuous person will pretend to desire and design that which he never means to bring about? With his wisdom; for who will propose to himself an end, and never intend the means which are proper, and alone sufficient to obtain it? With his blessedness; for to fall short continually of what one desires and intends, is an unhappiness. With the nature of Divine mercy and goodness; for that is not real goodness, which does no good, or not the good it makes show of. That is not saving mercy indeed, which leaves the objects of it miserable, when it can relieve them; that wishes them well, but lets them perish eternally. But that which they ascribe to God, is such a mercy, as can well digest the everlasting misery of all mankind: such a love, such a goodness, as could be satisfied, if not one person in the world should be saved.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2014)

Samuel Rutherford (Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself [1803]), 513:

We reject their catholic intentions and decrees, to save and redeem all and every one, which they vainly fancy to be God; as repugnant to his will which is irresistible, and cannot miss its end. 2. To his immutability, which cannot be compelled to take a second port, whereas he cannot fail the first. 3. To his omnipotency, who cannot be resisted. 4. To his happiness, who cannot come short of what his soul desires. 5. To his wisdom, who cannot aim at an end, and desire it with his soul, and go about it by such means as he seeth shall be utterly uneffectual and never produce his end; and not use these means which he knoweth may, and infallibly doth, produce the same end in others.


----------



## py3ak (May 11, 2014)

Matthew, to your knowledge are there any Scottish Presbyterians who hold to an unfulfilled will? (Before John Murray, anyway.)


----------



## MW (May 11, 2014)

py3ak said:


> Matthew, to your knowledge are there any Scottish Presbyterians who hold to an unfulfilled will? (Before John Murray, anyway.)



Ruben, The United Presbyterians in the 19th century allowed for the double reference theory of the atonement which included a general reference to save all men and a special reference to save the elect. The UPs also passed a Declaratory Act (1879) which allowed liberty to hold to the doctrine of an universal will. Conservative Freechurchmen like Dr. John Kennedy wrote against the doctrine of this Act and showed how it undermines the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Similar Declaratory statements were made by many Presbyterian Churches in the late 19th century and early 20th century under the sense that the Confession was too restrictive in its doctrine of saving grace. Subsequent history has manifested that this sentimental theology ultimately leads to Arminianism or other forms of universalism.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2014)

John Brown of Wamphray (Life of Justification, 561):

This is considerable, That the asserting of universal redemption goeth not alone; but there are several other universalities also affirmed and maintained, either as consequences, or concomitants, or grounds thereof, which the Scripture knoweth not: such as these.

(1.) An universal love and philanthropy towards all and every one, without any difference: which they lay down, as the ground of the sending of Christ to die for all indiscriminately. (2.) An universal will in God to save all, which they call an antecedent will; and hold forth as a velleity, or a wish and desire, that all might be saved; as if God could not effectuate whatever he desired, or could have a velleity towards any thing, which either he could not or would not effectuate...


----------



## py3ak (May 12, 2014)

Thanks, Matthew, that's very informative.


----------



## earl40 (May 12, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew, to your knowledge are there any Scottish Presbyterians who hold to an unfulfilled will? (Before John Murray, anyway.)
> ...



Currious are there any Presbyterian Churches, internationally, that do not allow such for their clergy?


----------



## MW (May 12, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Currious are there any Presbyterian Churches, internationally, that do not allow such for their clergy?



Earl, by "such" do you mean those teaching the doctrine contained in the Declaratory statements or those who reject the doctrine of the Declaratory statements?


----------



## earl40 (May 12, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Currious are there any Presbyterian Churches, internationally, that do not allow such for their clergy?
> ...



The such would be those who reject the doctrine of the Declaratory statements.


----------



## MW (May 12, 2014)

earl40 said:


> The such would be those who reject the doctrine of the Declaratory statements.



None that I know of. I imagine it would be very difficult to make "universal will" a term of ministerial communion in a Presbyterian church which still adheres to the Confession in some sense. It would require a new confession rather than a Declaratory statement.


----------



## earl40 (May 12, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > The such would be those who reject the doctrine of the Declaratory statements.
> ...



So from what I read the Declaratory statement trumps the confession which is clear in my opinion. I can understand that this is a pastoral concern to the laity. My concern is that I asked with our pastors and teachers in mind who are responsible for the sheep. So before the Declaratory statement I would assume a vast majority of the early reformers would see this issue the same as Clarkson?


----------



## MW (May 12, 2014)

earl40 said:


> So before the Declaratory statement I would assume a vast majority of the early reformers would see this issue the same as Clarkson?



An unfulfilled divine will was identified as Arminian and rejected as such. The Reformed faith, in its very essence, does not allow for such a concept. It is a third kind of will, as middle knowledge is a third kind of knowledge. If accepted and worked out it would have the potential to erode every distinctive of the Reformed faith.

I agree that there is a pastoral concern here. If God has an unfulfilled will how can a hearer of the gospel be sure that God's will shall be effectual to save him? Salvation is made conditional on something external to the will of God.

To quote Francis Turretin, "if God wills that each and everyone shall be saved, either all will actually be saved (which is false) or a certain will of God remains defeated and inefficacious (which is absurd)."


----------

