God's Will of Disposition

[Peairtach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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.

You mean like William Perkins, the Father of Puritanism?

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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]

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 will 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.